F 210 
.R9953 
Copy 1 



FOUR ADDRESSES 



IE 



h 



MISS MILDRED LEWIS RUTHERFORD 

OF ATHENS GEORGIA 



HISTORIAN GENERAL 

UNITED DAUGHTERS OF CONFEDERACY 

I91I-19I6 



Author of 

*CAe South in History and Literature 

American Jluthors, ^tc. 




Jlrranged and 'Printed By 

THE MILDRED RUTHERFORD HISTORICAL CIRCLE 
1823-6 JEFFERSON BANK BUILDING : BIRMINGHAM ; ALA. 



mlllllllillllllllillllllllilllllllllllllilliilllillillilllllllllilllililllltlllilllillllllliill^ 



Ykfo 



r; 



? 



Addri 



ess 



Delivered By 

Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford 

Historian General 

United Daughters of the 

Confederacy 



The South in the Building of 
the Nation 



Washington, D, C. 
Thursday, November 1 4th, 1912 



COPYRIGHTED 1916 

By 
J. STANDISH CLARK 

CifU 
Author 



The South in the Building of the Nation 



Ij ^^vj ^l HERE conies to me a memory — the memoiy of our 
Dr. J. B. Lamar Curry, and what he said years ago, 
that history as it is now written is most unjust to the 
South, and history if accepted as it is written, will 



consign the South to infamy. 

Who is responsible for the South's unwritten history? 
Surely we cannot blame the northern historian. His duty is 
and was to record the facts as they are given to him; and if we 
of the South have not given him these facts, how can we hold 
the historian of the North responsible? (Applause). The fault 
we find with the northern historian, (of course there are a few 
exceptions,) is not so much what he has said against us as what 
he has omitted to say. (Applause). 

Unless we. Daughters of the Confederacy, will look into 
this matter and see where the trouble lies we will still have this 
history untrue to us. As long as the Book Trust controls our 
Boards of Education and northern text-books continue to be 
used in southern schools to the exclusion of southern text- 
books, we will realize that the history of the South will never 
be known to the coming generations. (Applause). 

We cannot in the South compete with the North in pub- 
lishing houses. Therefore, we cannot sell books at as small 
a cost as they can be sold by northern publishers. This throws 
the responsibility upon the moneyed men of the South, who 
have not thought it worth while to spend their means in having 
publishing houses for southern text-books so that we can com- 
pete in prices with northern text-books. We must not blame 
the manufacturer of books at the North because he is pushing 
his interests in the matter of his books. You would do it and 
I would do it. 

No, Daughters of the Confederacy, too long have we been 
indifferent to this matter. Only within the last fifteen or 
twenty years have we really awakened to the fact that our 
history has not been written. The institutions of the South, 
especially the institution of slavery, about which clustered a 
civilization unique in the annals of history, have never been 
justly presented from the southern point of view. Thomas 
Nelson Page, more than any other one writer, has thrown side- 

3 



lights upon this institution which have revolutionized the 
thought of the world. And so we are greatly indebted to him! 

Daughters, are the books of Thomas Nelson Page in your 
libraries, especially his "Old South?" Are these books given 
to your children to read? Are your children encouraged to 
read these books? If not, they should be. You cannot expect 
the North, and you cannot expect other nations to know by 
intuition the greatness of the South. Ah ! how often the vision 
comes before me of the passing years, and I see our inertness 
and indifference and I see more — the future years filled with 
keen regret and self-reproach. 

I am here tonight, Daughters, yes, daughters of Confed- 
erate heroes, to plead with you, to urge you to a more aggressive 
and progressive campaign in collecting and preserving this 
history. We have now living amongst us some who lived dur- 
ing the old plantation days — some who can now tell us from 
their own experiences what that institution of slavery was, 
and what it meant to them and to the negroes under their 
control. In those days we never thought of calling them slaves. 
That is a word that crept in with the abolition crusade. They 
were our people, our negroes, part of our very homes. There 
are men and women still living who know these facts and who 
can give them to us, but they are fast passing away, just as are 
the men and women who lived during the War Between the 
States. Are we getting from these men and women the facts 
which only they can give us, or are we indifferent and not 
willing to take time and not willing to take the trouble to get 
this information? Let me say tonight that if we still continue 
to let the years pass by, without giving attention to this subject, 
the history of this period will ever be unwritten. 

Now you say, "What can we do?" What can we do? 
Anything in the world we wish to do. If there is a power that 
is placed in any hands, it is the power that is placed in the 
hands of the southern woman in her home. (Applause). That 
power is great enough to direct legislative bodies — and that, 
too, without demanding the ballot. (Applause). As j^ou are, 
so is your child, and as you think, so will your husband think, 
(Laughter and applause) that is, if you are the right kin^ of 
mother and wife and hold the confidence and love of ^Qur 
husband and children. Your children are to be the future 
leaders of this land. Are you training these children yourself 
or are you relegating that power to someone else? Something 
is radically wrong with the education of the present day. We 

4 



are training men and women who are not loyal to the truth 
of history, who are not standing for law and order, and 
who are weak enough to be bought by the Book Trust. 
(Applause) . Let us do quickly what we can to right it. 

You may say, "Tell us the qualifications for a U. D. C. 
historian, and we will get to work." 

I would say the first qualification for any historian is 
truthfulness. History is truth, and you must truthfully give 
the facts. Be as careful to give the true history of the side 
against us as to give our own side, then we can demand from 
the northern historian that he shall do the same. 

The historian must never be partial — no one-sided view 
of any question is ever history. You realize that in our U. D. C. 
history there are two sides to many questions. Time has not 
yet settled many of these points. What we must do as his- 
torians is to carefully record the facts on both sides. 

There came to me in the preparation of my volumes of 
history for our work such questions as these: Who was the 
first to propose Memorial Day? There are two sides to that 
question. I may think I know, but my opinion should not go 
down as undisputed history. The evidence as held by both 
parties must be recorded for the future historian. So with 
the question. Who first suggested the United Daughters of the 
Confederacy? The evidence as held by both sides must be 
placed side by side. Where was the Last Cabinet Meeting of 
the Confederacy held? Three States are claiming that honor. 
Where was the last battle of the War Between the States 
fought? Two places are claiming that. You heard today 
North Carolina and Alabama claiming the origin of the Con- 
federate flag. There may be facts on both sides of these ques- 
tions which an impartial historian can decide in future years 
better than we now can, so I beg you to be careful and don't 
let us think we know it all. 

Then the historian must be very patient. The material 
that we are seeking is scattered far and wide. The veterans 
are very slow to glorify themselves, and you must tactfully 
draw from them the things you wish to know. Oh, great 
patience is required on the part of the historian? 

Then you must be bold and fearless, daring to tell the 
truth even if adverse criticism comes to you for doing it. But 
while bold and fearless be tactful, be broad and be liberal- 
minded. 

5 



An historian should have with her the elements of the 
philosopher. It must need be that you are required to deal 
with the social, the economic and the political questions of the 
day, and you must be prepared to discuss them without pas- 
sion. You must learn to hold yourself within yourself in 
discussing all questions of that kind. 

You must have enthusiasm, also — that enthusiasm which 
will carry all with you; but, here again your enthusiasm must 
be tempered with good will and with fairness. Then you must 
be a patriot — because the Confederate soldier was the highest 
type of a patriot, (Applause) and when you are writing of him 
you must know what patriotism means. 

And you must be loyal to truth — not with regard to Con- 
federate history only, but loyal to the truth of all history. 
(Applause.) 

What is history? I would say that it is not dates 
chronologically arranged, nor is it gossip about politics, nor 
is it descriptions of battles only. All of these things may enter 
into history, but I think history centers around some human 
event, some social movement. And to write history one must 
know human nature. Not only must we know the event, but 
we must know what caused it and all the circumstances attend- 
ing it, and the motives of all the people connected with it. 

The field of history is as broad as human life; the quali- 
ties of history should be truth and wisdom; the aim of history 
should be to find the truth; the methods of the historian 
should be to pursue truth and weigh it, then publish it after it 
is weighed. In a word, if you ask me "What is history?" I 
would answer, "It is getting truth." The sources of history 
are oral or written. We have. Daughters, an opportunity to- 
day to get much of our history from oral testimony. Shall we 
neglect to do the thing which in a few years we cannot do ? 

Do you know, that the South has had a great part in the 
building of the nation? If you examine those text-books your 
children are studying you would never think it. (Laughter). 
And from them they will never discover it. Our institutions are 
very often unjustly — I should not have said unjustly, for we 
ourselves have never put them justly before the world — but as 
history stands now it is unjust to the institutions of the South. 

Do you know, that in the books your children are study- 
ing and reading the institution of slavery is said to have weak- 
ened the mental faculties of the men and women of the South, 
making them lazy and inert? (Laughter). But history 

6 



unjustly as it has been written will by the lives of these men 
disprove that very statement. 

Not only were we the first permanent colony that came 
to these shores, but more than that for it is stated upon good 
authority that one of our Jamestown colony was instrumental 
in inducing the Pilgrim Fathers to come to Plymouth Rock, 
and yet you and your children know all about that Plymouth 
Rock colony, and can answer without a moment's hesitation 
that it was the Mayflower that brought over the Pilgrim 
Fathers to this country, and few can give the names of the 
Good Speed, the Discovery, and the Susan Constant, the three 
vessels that brought the members of the Jamestown colony 
first to these shores. (Laughter). 

Why? I will tell you why. The North has thought it 
worth while to preserve its history carefully, and we have not 
thought it worth while to have our history written. In other 
words your children are studying what the North says and not 
what the South should say. 

Do you know, that most of the men who took part — a 
prominent part — in the building of the nation were the slave- 
holders that have been so maligned? When they were look- 
ing for a president of the first Continental Congress why did 
they go to Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, a slaveholder, to be 
at the head of that body? (Applause). And why, when a 
resolution had to be drawn that these colonies must be free 
and independent states, did Richard Henry Lee, another slave- 
holder have to write it? (Applause). Why was it when they 
were seeking for some one to write the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, they chose Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder? 
(Applause). The Rritish Encyclopaedia, which is so unjust 
to the South, says it was because he was a ready writer. Com- 
pliment No. 1 that this encyclopaedia, found in every Southern 
library, has paid to the South. 

Did not our George Mason of Virginia, give the first 
Declaration of Rights ever passed on this continent? Then 
when they were looking for a commander-in-chief of the 
Army, did they not choose another slaveholder, George Wash- 
ington? (Applause). And when they were looking for a 
commander-in-chief of the Navy, was it not our James Nichol- 
son of Virginia? And was it not John Marshall's pen that 
welded the states into a union? And when they were looking 
for men to write a paper stronger than the Articles of the Con- 
federation, did not they first choose our James Madison to 



write it — that is our Constitution before amended since the 
war? And when they needed Chief Justices for the govern- 
ment, did not our Marshall of Virginia, and Taney of Mary- 
land, for over sixty years hold that office? And wasn't it a 
southern man that was made the first President of the United 
States? Was it not Thomas Jefferson that added the Louisiana 
Purchase — millions of miles of territory — to the United States; 
and was it not James K. Polk of Tennessee, that added the 
Pacific slope? Did not Virginia give to the United States, Ohio, 
Indiana, Michigan and a part of Minnesota? There were 15 
Presidents before 1860 and 11 of them were southern men. 
Five of these were re-elected and every one from the South. 
It cannot be denied that southern men were foremost in the 
War of 1812, and you know it took a southern man, Francis 
Scott Key of Maryland, to write our National anthem — The 
Star Spangled Banner. 

Did it not take two southern men, Taylor and Scott, to 
gain Mexico, and were not the men most prominent in that 
campaign from the South — Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, 
Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. Jackson, our Stonewall, Jos. E. John- 
ston, and A. P. Hill of Virginia, Henry R. Jackson and Josiah 
Tatnall of Georgia, Beauregard of Louisiana, Braxton Bragg 
of North Carolina, Butler and May of Maryland, and others too 
numerous to mention? Was it not James Monroe who bought 
Florida for the U. S., and it has been his Monroe Doctrine, 
abuse it as you may now, that has kept our America for Amer- 
icans so long. And was not Sam Houston the hero of Texas, 
and was it not Meriwether Lewis of Virginia and William 
Clarke of Kentucky, who opened up the Yellowstone and the 
great West? (Applause). 

No, we do not begin to know what part the South had in 
the building of the nation — not only in one direction but in 
many. 

Let us turn to the inventors. Was it not our Cyrus Mc- 
Cormick of Virginia that invented the reaping machine which 
revolutionized harvesting? 

Was it not our James Gatling of North Carolina that 
invented the gatling gun? Was it not our Francis Goulding 
of Georgia that invented the sewing machine? But history 
don't tell you so. (Laughter) . It says Howe and 1 hirmonnier 
did it. Was it not our William Longstreet of Georgia that first 
suggested the application of steam as a motive power? History 
will not tell you that either, but will say that Fulton did it. 

8 



Was it not Watkins of Georgia who invented the cotton gin? 
You never heard of him before, did you? History tells you 
Ely Whitney invented the cotton gin. The first passenger 
railroad in the world was in South Carolina, and the first 
steamboat that ever crossed the Atlantic ocean went from 
Savannah, Georgia. You don't find that in northern histories, 
do you ? Wasn't Paul Morphey the greatest chess player in the 
world? (Laughter). And wasn't Sidney Lanier the finest 
flute player ever known? Cyrus Field could not have made 
his cable a possibility without our Matthew Maury to devise 
the plans. There never was an ornithologist like our Audobon 
of Louisiana. And I do not believe they could have tunnelled 
under the Hudson without our William McAdoo of Marietta, 
Ga. (Laughter.) Then, again, when they wanted a leader of 
the Union forces in 1861 why did they go to our Robert E. Lee? 
And when he refused, did they not choose Winfield Scott, 
another southern man? 

Then when we come to science and medicine, what physi- 
cian has done more to alleviate the sufferings of the world 
than our Dr. Crawford W. Long of Georgia? (Applause.) He 
was without doubt the discoverer of anesthesia, and I don't 
believe you know all that means to you, or you would have 
applauded louder, and you would not allow others to try to 
take the honor from him, and you would have erected a mon- 
ument to him long ago. Was it not our Sims of South Carolina 
who first suggested surgery in hospital service? 

Then let us come to the question of education. If there 
is a thing that the South has smarted under in the false way 
that history has been written, it is in regard to illiteracy in the 
South, and I want to open your eyes a little bit along this line, 
and you of the South need an opening of the eyes as well as 
the people of the North. We do not ourselves know all that 
the South may claim. 

Do you know, that William and Mary College at Williams- 
burg, Va., was the first university in the United States? Now, 
mind you, I did not say college, for I have no desire to take 
from Harvard her glory. And did you know that William and 
Mary was the first to receive a charter from the crown; the 
first to have a school of modern languages; the first to have 
a school of history; the first to use the honor system? And 
do you know, that the Georgia University, Athens, Ga., was 
the first State University in the U. S.? Besides this, do you 
know that the Wesleyan College at Macon, Ga., was the first 

9 



chartered college for women in the world, and that it was a 
Georgia woman who received the first diploma ever issued? 

Do you know, that in 1673 Mosely of North Carolina, was 
establishing public libraries in his state, and Byrd of Westover 
as early as 1676 gave 39 free libraries in his state, Virginia — a 
veritable Carnegie, and had no strings tied to them, either. 
(Laughter and applause.) Why, South Carolina was having 
free schools as early as 1710, and I think Virginia had them 
before this. What nonsense to say that the South was behind 
the North in literary taste and culture in the days of the South 
of Yesterday! The first book written in America was in Vir- 
ginia, and the first book printed in America was in Virginia. 
The libraries in the Old South contained the best books then 
published, and the best magazines in this country and in Eng- 
land were on the library tables. And as to the matter of 
illiteracy, since the War, just let me put this thought in your 
mind. It was Savannah, Ga., in the World's Almanac of 1910 
or 1911, I forget which that was said to have had the lowest 
percent of illiteracy in the U. S., and remember, too, that 
Georgia's population is about half negroes. 

Again, you cannot put a two-cent stamp on a letter that 
a southern man and a slaveholder, George Washington, does 
not speak to you; and you cannot handle our silver currency 
that another southern man and a slaveholder, Thomas Jeffer- 
son, does not speak. 

No, we do not ourselves know our own greatness, and 
how can we expect others to know it? If time permitted I 
could go, on and on, giving one thing after another that would 
astound you; but this much I will say, that no section of the 
land can show greater statesmen, abler jurists, braver sol- 
diers, purer patriots, more eminent men of letters, more skilled 
physicians and inventors, truer and holier divines, finer 
orators, and more men who have been foremost in all depart- 
ments of life than our own South. (Applause.) And the time 
has fully come, and all sections of the country seem to have 
realized that the time has come, for the South to come into 
her own. (Applause.) 

Thank God that Gov. Woodrow Wilson has been elected 
President of the United States (Applause) — a man w^ho stands 
for all that the South stands for; a man who is above being 
bought; a man who will be equally just to the North as to the 
South. (Applause). And we of the South must stand back 
of him and show implicit confidence in all that he does and 

10 



says. We must be slow to join in any adverse criticism, and 
let him know that we believe that he is going to do the very 
best thing in the very best way. (Applause.) Georgia feels 
very proud that for the first time in history the Lady of the 
White House will be a Georgia daughter. (Applause.) 

Now, just as the Confederate soldier returned after the 
war and became a peaceful citizen, because he was a hero, 
and could rise above the humiliation of surrender, and from 
a hero of war become a hero of peace, so should we, daughters 
of these Confederate soldiers, emulate their example. The 
Confederate soldier fought with honor, surrendered with 
honor, and abided the issue with honor. After the war he 
came back into the Union equal with all Union men. He is as 
loyal to the flag today as other Union men. It is true, he had 
to fight his way with shackled hands during that awful recon- 
struction period; but wise men of the North understand why 
it was a necessity then. He was compelled to establish the 
\ political supremacy of the white man in the South. 
' (Applause.) So, too, the Ku Klux Klan was a necessity at that 
time, and there can come no reproach to the men of the South 
for resorting to that expedient. 

Loyalty to the flag was shown by the South in the Spanish- 
American War. More soldiers in proportion to the population 
went from southern states than from northern states. And 
was not our Joe Wheeler of Alabama "the backbone of the 
Santiago campaign?" And was it not said of our Hobson of 
Alabama that he performed the most wonderful feat ever per- 
formed in naval history? And did not Willard of Maryland 
plant the first flag in Cuba? And was it not Tom Brumby of 
Georgia that raised the first flag at Manilla? And did not 
Anderson of Virgina fire the first salute at El Caney? And 
so in many ways other southern heroes have shown their 
loyalty to the flag. 

But, does loyalty to the flag that floats above us prevent 
our loyalty to the Confederate flag? Not at all. That is the 
emblem of the South's patriotism. Four years it waved its 
precious folds above a righteous cause, and when we furled 
it, it was because we were overpowered and not because we 
were conquered. (Applause.) Silently and reverently we 
laid that flag away, that our children and children's children 
coming after us might revere it; it will teach to them the 
principles for which our fathers fought — states' rights and 
constitutional liberty. 

11 



Every Confederate State had a share in the War Between 
the States. Some states suffered more than others. Dear old 
Virginia was the battle ground. Ah! how Virginia suffered. 
Over five hundred battles were fought on Virginia's soil. But 
I believe North Carolina holds the palm when it comes to 
sacrifice. (Applause.) One-fourth of all the Confederate sol- 
diers that were killed during the War Between the States were 
North Carolinians; one-fourth of all who were wounded were 
North Carolinians; one-third of all that died from disease 
were North Carolinians; and that 26th Regiment of North 
Carolina sustained the heaviest loss ever sustained by any 
regiment during the war on either side. Eight hundred fell 
in Pickett's charge, either killed or wounded, and only eighty 
were left to tell the tale. This shows how the old North State 
stands for bravery. 

You would think from this, wouldn't you, that I am a 
North Carolinian? I am not, but a Georgian. (Applause.) 
I am Georgia born and Georgia bred, of parents Georgia born 
and bred — Georgian from the crown of my head to the soles of 
my feet, and loyal enough to old Georgia to wear tonight a 
velvet dress woven on a Georgia loom at Griffin. (Applause). 
But Georgia has so many things of which to boast she can well 
afford to be magnanimous to other states. 

The War Between the States was a war of secession and 
coercion. It really came about by a different interpretation 
of the Constitution. The South interpreted it to mean State 
sovereignty. The thirteen states ratified that constitution. 
Why was it ratified by them at that time if they were unwilling 
to abide by it in later years? (Applause). 

A very significant thing happened last year. The son of 
Harriet Beecher Stowe, Charles E. Stowe, gave a talk before 
the Fiske University at Nashville, Tenn., the largest college 
for negroes in the South, in which he said : "It is evident that 
there was a rebellion, but the North were the rebels, not the 
South. (Applause.) The South stood for state rights and 
slavery, both of which were distinctly entrenched within the 
constitution." And we have had no harsher critic of the South 
than Prof, Goldwin Smith, and he said that you cannot accuse 
the southern leaders of being rebels for "secession is not rebel- 
lion." 

For seventy-three years the South stood back of this consti- 
tution to protect her rights and those rights were protected; 
but when Abraham Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery 

12 



platform, without an electoral vote from the South, war was 
inevitable. We felt that if one state's right was interfered 
with, other states' rights would be. I have heard even some 
southern people say that the war was fought to keep our slaves. 
What gross ignorance! Only one-third of the men in the 
Confederate army ever owned a slave. Gen. Lee freed his 
slaves before the war began and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant did not 
free his until the war ended. 

In 1860 there were 40 millions of people in the United 
States — 31 millions being north of Mason's and Dixon's line. 
Nine millions only were in the South, and four millions of 
these were our negroes. That left five millions of people 
including young children and old men and women from which 
our army of 600,000 had to be chosen. The North had an army 
of nearly 2,800,000. Gen. Buell, a general on the other side, 
said, "It took a naval fleet and 15,000 men to advance upon 100 
Confederates at Fort Henry. It took 60,000 men to whip 40,000 
at Shiloh, and it took only 60,000 Confederates to drive back 
with heavy loss 115,000 at Fredericksburg, Va." (Applause). 

Yes, there was a great disparity in number, but the make- 
up of our army was the very flower of Southern manhood; 
those men fought! Never in the annals of history has been 
recorded such devotion to duty and principles as was found 
in the southern soldier. 

We were not then a manufacturing people, we were an 
agricultural people. This cannot be said about us now. So 
the home supplies soon gave out, and our soldiers did suffer 
sorely. 

Half-clad, they went through storm and sleet, through 
shot and shell. 

Half-shod, they marched through thorn and thistle and, 
bare-foot, scaled the mountain heights to meet the advancing 
foe. 

Half-fed, on half rations they went without complaint 
and cheerfully shared their little with others in the devastated 
regions. 

No, you will never find anything like the record of the 
Confederate soldiers. They surrendered when forced to sur- 
render like heroes. Can we blame them when they wept 
like children? 

They came back to the old South to readjust the old South 
to the new order of things. They do not acknowledge there 
is a new South. Henry Grady was a very young man when he 

13 



went to Boston and spoke of "the new South." He did not 
know how the people of the old South would feel about that. 
There is no new South. The South of today is the South of 
yesterday remade to fit the new order of things. And the men 
of today and the women of today are adjusting themselves to 
the old South remade. 

But the time has come now when the men and women 

: of the South can sit down quietly and discuss with the men and 
women of the North the War Between the States, and have no 

1 bitterness in their hearts. We could not have done this a few 
years ago. It only goes to prove how our people are becoming 
a reunited people. Our sons are marrying northern daughters; 
our daughters are marrying northern sons; our sons are enter- 
ing the army and navy and standing side by side with the boys 
from the North. 

Conventions, as the D. A. R., the Colonial Dames, the 
Women's Federation of Clubs, and religious convocations are 
bringing us closer together, so that we are beginning to know 
each other and love one the other. 

j I think the Spanish-American War did more than any 

I other one thing to make us understand each other. The sol- 
diers of the North camped in the southern states. Two reg- 
iments of Pennsylvania troops were stationed in our town, 
Athens, Ga. They began to understand conditions with us in 
Georgia, and knew better how to sympathize with us in solv- 
ing those problems so perplexing to us in the South. We met 
those soldiers, many of the oflicers were invited to our homes, 
and so we learned to know them. 

Then, too, such a speech as President Taft made to us on 
Tuesday night will tend greatly to make us a reunited people. 
(Applause.) Ah! how that touched our hearts. We can never 
forget it. (Applause.) We may forget many things that this 
Convention may bring forth, but his words will linger long in 
our memorj'. Again, words from such men as Corporal 
Tanner will bind us close together — men who are brave enough 
and true enough to their own side, and to their own principles, 
and yet broad enough and true enough to see our side, too. 
(Applause.) 

And so the day is fast coming, a day of peace. God 
grant that peace may soon reign in all hearts, so that we may 
be a nation known as a God-fearing people; a people that will 
stand for temperance — that temperance that will not harm 
our brother man; a people that will stand for purity — that 

14 



purity that will make for pure manhood and womanhood; a 
people that will stand for honesty — that honesty of conviction 
and principle that will dare to do the right thing and the just 
thing. May we stand before all nations as the greatest people 
on the earth — a people that knowing right will dare to do right. 
And when I urge upon you. Daughters of the Confederacy, 
to write the truth of history and to teach it to your children, 
it is with no desire to arouse in your hearts and minds nor in 
their hearts and minds any animosity or bitterness, but that 
all may intelligently comprehend the principles for which 
our fathers fought. Teach your children to resent their being 
called rebels and traitors, and let them know that our fathers 
fought so valiantly in order that they might preserve constitu- 
tional liberty. (Applause). We will never be condemned for 
being Confederates, but the whole world has a right to con- 
demn us, if we are disloyal to truth and to our native land. 
(Prolonged applause). 



15 



Add 



ress 



Delivered By 

Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford 

Historian General 

United Daughters of the 

Confederacy 



Thirteen Periods of United 
States History 



New Orleans, La. 
Thursday, November 2 1 st, 1912 




Thirteen Periods of United States Hi^ory 

THE SOUTH'S PART IN MAKING HISTORY. 

AST year at Washington, you remember, your His- 
torian-General sounded a very sad note; this year 
she is able to sound a far more cheerful one. 
Twenty-one of twenty-two State Divisions have 
reported systematic work along historical lines; six, of the 
eleven States having no Divisions, have also reported progress; 
and some individual chapters have sent most valuable contri- 
butions recording Southern events. 

This advance has been a great encouragement, and it has 
made me feel that if such advance continues in the same pro- 
portion each year, it will not be long before the South shall 
be placed where she rightly belongs in the annals of history. 

I bring you this evening sixteen volumes, averaging 400 
pages each, which I have prepared for you in scrap book form. 
These bound volumes are not for publication, but are com- 
piled for the convenience of the future historian. I desire, 
after indexing them, to be permitted to place them in our Con- 
federate Museum at Richmond, Va., so that there shall be no 
excuse hereafter that the truth concerning the South is not 
available. 

As State Historian of Georgia, I have twenty-six similar 
volumes pertaining to Georgia history; as the historian of 
my own chapter I have eleven volumes concerning Athens 
history. 

Do you not see the possibilities in our work? Each State 

Historian has the opportunity of compiling her own State 

history; each Chapter Historian, her own local history, put- 

I ting it into scrap-book form, binding it, indexing it, and hav- 

1 ing it ready when it is needed. 

I had hoped to bring you this evening twenty volumes 
instead of sixteen, but four of these volumes could not be 
completed because you failed to do your duty. 

Our President-General urged you to send the history of 
your State Division — only eleven States responded, so that 
volume is incomplete. I urged you in my Open Letter to send 
information regarding the disputed points, connected with our 
Confederate history, also your state's part in the making of our 

19 



history, and the names of our great men of the South in 
Science, Art and Invention from your State. Very few 
responded to these requests, so the three other volumes conse- 
quently remain unfinished. 

Now, Daughters of the Confederacy, while it is true that 
we are making an advance in collecting and preserving this 
history, are we really doing all that we can do? Have we in 
the past done all that could have been done? I answer without 
hesitation, I do not think so. 

We are far too prone to believe that the history of the 
South is included in the four years of the War Between the 
States and the seven years of reconstruction which followed. 
While this is undoubtedly the pivot upon which our Southern 
history does turn, we should not neglect to know and to teach 
the events which led to this period, and the results which have 
followed. 

To my mind there are thirteen well-defined eras or periods 
of United States history. In eight of these eras the South has 
been pre-eminent; in four the North has been pre-eminent; 
in one we have shared the honors. 

I wish very much that time would permit me this evening 
to take period by period and show you just what rightfully 
belongs to the South. As it is, I shall only have time to give 
you a glimpse of the many good things that we may claim. 

May I suggest that the Chapters take these Thirteen 
Periods for their Historical Programs next year, using these 
instead of a Year Book? If this is done the next Convention 
will report marvelous progress in a knowledge of Southern 
history. The amount expended in Year Books can then be 
given to our Arlington and Shiloh monuments, and greatly 
facilitate those objects. 

While the Mason and Dixon line was drawn to settle a 
dispute between the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland 
regarding their boundary, I shall use that line to separate the 
colonies and states of the North from those of the South. 

One hundred years or more had passed since Columbus 
discovered America, when Queen Elizabeth, realizing that 
Spain was not only gaining great wealth by her possessions 
in America, but that she was also planting a religion that 
was not Protestant, granted to Sir Walter Raleigh, one of her 
favorites, permission to organize a company for the purpose 
of establishing settlements in the New World in England's 
name. This settlement was called for the Virgin Queen, Vir- 

20 



ginia. It extended from "the northern boundary of Florida on 
the South to the St. Lawrence River including the Great Lakes 
on the North, and from the Atlantic Ocean on the East to the 
Great Sea on the West." So you see that every colony, at 
the time of the War of Independence, had practically been 
settled on Virginia's soil. Eight of these colonies were in the 
North and only five were in the South. Those in the North 
included in area 164,000 square miles, while those in the South 
included 824,000, five times the extent of territory. 

Let us now begin with the Early Colonial Period, the first 
of our history. 

Not only was the Jamestown colony in Virginia the first 
permanent English colony in America, but it was the first 
to have an Assembly, a written Constitution, a trial by jury, 
an endowed college, a school house, a school for Indians, a 
missionary to the Indians. First to have a preacher, to build 
a church, to have a marriage ceremony, a baptism, a Thanks- 
giving Day (1609), a hospital, a physician, an orphan asylum. 
First to Christianize the negro, to stand for liberty of con- 
science, to stand for religious freedom, to demand the right 
to will one's property, to have a library, to have a free library, 
to have a circulating library, to have free schools, to have a 
colonial currency, to write a book, to have a Sunday School, 
to have a hymn book, to have a court house, to have a post 
office. First to have a tavern, to have an iron furnace, to plant 
cotton, rice, indigo, potatoes, and grapes, to discover the love- 
apple now our tomato, to build a ship, to build a Masonic 
Temple, to make bricks, to leave a legacy to the poor — yes, 
first in many things I have not time to mention. 

"Whitaker's Good Newes" was the first book ever written 
on America's soil, although it had to be printed in England. 
Edwin Sandys wrote the first book ever printed in America, 
although it was printed on a New England press. Dryden 
said Sandys was "the best versifier of his age," and Alexander 
Pope gave him high praise. William Strachey in 1609 wrote 
his "Shipwreck at Sea," which suggested to William Shake- 
speare his great play, "The Tempest." The first Literary 
Society in the United States was at Charleston in 1748 and it 
is in existence today. 

John Smith, of the Jamestown colony, not only discovered 
New England and Plymouth but named them, and advised the 
Pilgrim Fathers to come to them! There were eleven planta- 
tions or burgesses in Virginia with negroes on them, and a 

21 



population of more than 4,000 people before the Mayflower 
ever sailed for America. So we must not believe that every- 
thing good and great in those early days originated in the 
Plymouth Rock colony, as history represents it. We have in 
the South the oldest city in the United States, St. Augustine, 
and Jamestown you know was "The Cradle of the Republic." 

Had it not been for the victory at Bloody Marsh in 1742 
there would have been no colonies to declare their indepen- 
dence. The Spaniards in Florida had fully determined to take 
possession of all the land claimed by the English from the 
boundary of Florida to the St. Lawrence River, and this they 
could easily have done. Oglethorpe with his brave 682 Geor- 
gians and two poorly equipped ships met 5,000 Spaniards, 
well-disciplined and well-equipped, with 56 ships well- 
provisioned at Bloody Marsh on St. Simon's Island, not far 
from Frederica, and trailed, for the first time on America's 
soil, the Spanish flag in the dust. 

George Whitfield said "That victory was like one of the 
Bible victories where God fought the battle for His people." 
But for this battle there would probably have been no Bunker 
Hill, no Saratoga, no Cowpens, no King's Mountain, no York- 
town, and Spain would be ruling where America rules today. 
New York acknowledged this, Pennsylvania acknowledged 
it, so did New Jersey and the other colonies and wrote to Ogle- 
thorpe testifying their indebtedness to Georgia for the victory 
he had achieved. 

Surely the South may claim to be pre-eminent in this the 
first period of our history! 

Turning now to the second or Later Colonial Period. It 
had ever been a principle with the British government that 
those governing only could levy taxes. It was with this under- 
standing that all of the colonies were settled. When England, 
contrary to this agreement, began her acts of oppression, such 
as the Importation Acts, Navigation Acts, acts forbidding the 
colonies to trade with the West Indies or even among them- 
selves, the colonies began to show a spirit of resistance. But 
this resistance began with no thought of separation from the 
mother country, and this thought came only when they were 
denied a voice in the levying of their taxes. As far back as 
1659 Gov. Fendall of Maryland, outraged by the arbitrary 
acts of the Lords Proprietors at a meeting held at Robert Slye's 
house declared Maryland a Republic. Culpepper, of North 
Carolina, appointed Courts of Justice and imprisoned the 

22 



president of this colony 100 years before the Declaration. In 
1719 South Carolina dismissed her Lords Proprietors and 
chose her own governor. You well remember Nathaniel 
Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, and North Carolina's trouble 
with her governor, and Georgia's arrest of hers. 

But the "Child of Independence" was really born in 1735 
when Charles Pinckney in the South Carolina Assembly said, 
"South Carolina has as much right to make her laws and levy 
her taxes as England." You were not taught that in history, 
were you? Your children are not being taught it now. I was 
taught, and so were you, that "The Child of Independence" 
was born twenty-six years later when James Otis, of Massa- 
chusetts protested against the "Writs of Assistance." 

In 1764 when Lord Grenville, the Prime Minister of Eng- 
land, announced in Parliament that the American colonies 
must be taxed by an act of Parliament, not by colonial act, 
in order to defray the war debt incurred by the French and 
Indian wars, there arose a war cry — "Taxation without repre- 
sentation." 

The Stamp Act Convention in New York followed. South 
Carolina sent Christopher Gadsden to represent her. When 
he said, "British lawmakers have no right to make laws for 
the colonies," Massachusetts publicly rebuked him for his 
"intemperate speech." Soon after this those brave North 
Carolinians seized a vessel and confiscated all the stamps she 
had on board. 

The celebrated Tea Party then took place. By the way, 
history as it is now written, makes so much of this tea-party 
at Boston with its disguised men to throw tea overboard, and 
says little of that one at Charleston when the tea was thrown 
overboard in broad daylight by men with no disguises, and the 
one at Annapolis, Md., about the same time and the tea openly 
thrown into the sea. 

Jonathan Bryan, of Savannah, called a meeting in 1769 
to protest against the Stamp Act, and Gov. Wright dismissed 
him from the Council. The Boston Port Bill followed. Who 
issued the Non-Importation Act, refusing to trade with Eng- 
land or the West Indies until Boston was relieved? John 
Hanson of Maryland. Who came in loving sympathy to aid 
Massachusetts? The Southern colonies. Washington said, "I 
will equip, if need be, a regiment of soldiers at my own ex- 
pense to relieve poor Massachusetts." Georgia said, "I will 
send her 600 barrels of rice and the equivalent of $720 to aid 

23 



her." North Carolina said, "I will send an equivalent of 
$10,000 to her," and South Carolina said, "I will also send 
her rice and money." George Mason wrote to his daughters 
in Virginia that when the services were held to pray for the 
relief of Massachusetts, they must go to those services in deep 
mourning. Patrick Henry said, "An insult to Massachusetts is 
an insult to Virginia !" 

The ball of the Revolution really started, for this was 
the first public act of defiance, when Patrick Henry made 
that speech in the House of Burgesses in Virginia in 1774, when 
he said, "Csesar had his Brutus, Charles I. had his Cromwell, 

and George IH. " The cry arose, "Treason! treason!" 

Pausing for a moment he added, "may well profit by their 
example. If this be treason, make the most of it." That ball 
continued to roll and gained an impetus until his memorable 
speech in the St. John Church at Richmond, beginning with, 
"We must fight if we would be free," and ending with those 
memorable words "but as for me, give me liberty or give me 
death." Those words "liberty or death" became the battle cry 
of the Revolution. 

Following closely came the Mecklenburg Declaration in 
North Carolina, May, 1775. Then in June of the same year 
South Carolina declared for independence, and in July follow- 
ing the Liberty Boys of Savannah, Georgia, called a Congress 
and practically annulled the objectionable acts of Parliament, 
questioned the supremacy of the British crown, and advocated 
statehood. They erected a liberty pole, the first in the South, 

But the boldest act was when in September, 1775, the 
Council of Safety of South Carolina, at Fort Johnson, tore 
down the British flag and raised the flag of South Carolina — a 
blue flag with a white crescent in the corner bearing the word 
"Liberty." When the Virginia Assembly met, Pendleton, I 
forget his first name, Edmund, I think, wrote a set of resolu- 
tions and, because he was presiding, asked Thomas Nelson 
to read them. The resolutions were to the effect that a delegate 
be appointed to go instructed to present at the Second Coiti- 
nental Congress a set of resolutions that the colonies be 
declared free and independent states. Richard Henry Lee w xs 
this delegate. Thus it was a Southern man offered the reso- 
lutions for freedom, (Lee) ; a Southern man was appointed io 
give the Summary of Rights to answer Lord North, (Jefferson). 

24 



A Southern man was made chairman of the Committee of 
Correspondence, (Dabney Carr) — remember, we had no rail- 
roads nor telegraph wires in those days — a Southern man 
organized the first troops for American independence (Hanson, 
of Maryland), a Southern man was made commander-in-chief 
of the army, (Washington), commander-in-chief of the navy, 
(James Nicholson), three Southern men were appointed to 
arm the colonies, and nothing could have been done had not 
another Southern man, (George Mason, of Virginia) given his 
Declaration of Rights. 

So can any one dare say that the South was not pre-em- 
inent in this the second period of our history? 

The colonies would have declared for freedom earlier 
had not the French and Indian wars kept their thoughts at 
home. But even in those Indian wars, who was the hero of 
Kaskaskia, Cahokia and Vincennes? George Rogers Clark, 
of Kentucky, and but for Clark and his brave men all of that 
Northwest Territory would now be a part of Canada. Who 
were the heroes of Council Bluff? Lewis and Clark. Who 
were the heroes of Point Pleasant? Selby and Lewis. Who 
was the hero of Duquesne and Great Meadows? George Wash- 
ington. And did not Burgoyne say his men feared above every- 
thing the riflemen of Daniel Morgan of the Shenandoah? 

Now let us see the South's part in the War for Inde- 
pendence, the third period of our history. 

We are too apt to think that this began with Jefferson's 
Declaration of Independence, but remember that the battles 
of Alamance, Lexington, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Bunker 
Hill, Quebec, Moore's Bridge and Charleston, were all fought 
before July 4, 1776. Again, why do we find in history so much 
said of those 19 patriots at Lexington, and scarcely a word 
of those 200 patriots at Alamance? When Clinton went to 
South Carolina, why did he fail to seize Sullivan's Island? 
Ask William Thompson of South Carolina. Who refused to 
surrender Charleston to Gen. Prevost? Ask Col. Moultrie. 
Who was the hero of Fort Moultrie? Sergeant Jasper. Who 
was the hero of Moore's Creek Bridge? Richard Caswell. 
Who of Ramsour's Mill? Col. Moore. 

Then for two and a half years, it is true, the war was 
fought on Northern soil, but Virginia troops were in every 
battle, our Washington was the leader after Bunker Hill, and 
Georgia sent the first schooner against the British, and Joseph 
Habersham, of Georgia, seized all the powder in the mag- 

25 



azine at Savannah, besides 14,000 pounds captured from a 
British ship, and sent it to be used at the Battle of Bunker 
Hill. North Carolina sent the powder that was used at Boston! 
Who was the hero of Trenton, Princeton, and Monmouth? 
George Washington. Who was the hero of Saratoga? Daniel 
Morgan of the Shenandoah. Who was promoted for bravery 
at the siege of Savannah? Samuel Davis, of Georgia, the 
father of our Jefferson Davis. Who were the heroes of Kettle 
Creek? Elijah Clarke and Dooly of Georgia, and Pickens of 
South Carolina. Who was the hero of Hanging Rock? 
Thomas Sumter of South Carolina. Who were the heroes of 
King's Mountain? Campbell of Virginia, Sevier and 
Selby of the Wautauga Settlement. Thomas Jefferson said 
that was the decisive battle of the Revolution. Who was the 
hero of Blackstock's Ford? Thomas Sumter of South Caro- 
lina. Who were the heroes of Cowpens? Morgan and William 
Washington of South Carolina. Cornwallis lost one-third of 
his army at this battle. Who was the hero of Yorktown? 
Thomas Nelson of Virginia. Who was the Swamp Fox of the 
Revolution? Francis Marion of South Carolina. Who was 
the Game Cock of the Revolution? Thomas Sumter. Who 
were those Partisan Leaders that did such valiant service for 
Carolina and drove Lord Rawdon from Charleston? Marion, 
Sumter, Pickens, and Lee. 

While the Americans had no regular navy, there were 
heroes on the sea, nevertheless. Who gained the victory over 
the Serapis if not John Paul Jones of North Carolina, and, 
finally, to whom did Cornwallis surrender? To our Washing- 
ton. Five-eighths of the men who fought in the Revolution 
were from Southern colonies, and nearly every leader of 
renown was from the South. 

George Bancroft, a Northern historian, said, "South Caro- 
lina endured more, suffered more, and achieved more than 
any of the other colonies," and Reed of Massachusetts, testi- 
fied that it was the gallantry of Southern men that inspired the 
whole army. 

This brings us to the fourth period of our history — The 
Period of Adjustment. 

When the surrender took place, Cornwallis sent to Wash- 
ington his sword, and Washington received it. As the soldiers 
marched away Washington said to his men, "Let there be no 
loud huzzahs, no loud acclaims, posterity will huzzah for us." 
Such was the magnanimity shown by our great commander. 

26 



Does this not recall to us that General Grant acted with equal 
magnanimity to our Gen. Lee and his barefoot Confederate 
braves, except there was no sword incident. Gen. Lee never 
offered his sword to Gen. Grant, nor did Gen. Grant demand 
it. 

The army gathered around Washington and offered him 
a crown. "No," he said, "my home is my throne, my crown 
shall be the love of my people," and he devoted his energies 
to adjust the new states to their new form of government. 

When the colonies renounced their allegiance to the Eng- 
lish crown, who presided over that Continental Congress to 
welcome Washington in 1781 after the surrender? John 
Hanson, of Maryland. A committee had been appointed just 
after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to prepare 
Articles of Confederation by which they could be governed 
until a more stable form of government could be established. 
I have never been able to find who wrote these Articles of 
Confederation. There is nothing strong in them, for they 
allowed money to be borrowed to carry on war but made no 
provision to pay it back. They allowed an army to be called, 
but provided no way to equip it. They would not allow any 
taxes to be levied. They allowed treaties to be made without 
provision to bind the nation to keep them. 

The States realized their weakness and refused to sign 
them at first. A convention was called later, in 1777, to discuss 
them. Henry Laurens, of South Carolina, was made Presi- 
dent. The States did not adopt them until 1779, and then under 
protest. When the Treaty of Paris was signed, 1783, giving 
peace to the colonies, that Treaty made each colony an inde- 
pendent and sovereign State, not a nation, so no State felt 
there was anything binding in those Articles to force payment 
of the war debt. 

Alexander Hamilton, "The Financier of the Revolution," 
advised with Washington as to the propriety of calling a 
Convention at Annapolis to revise the Articles of Confedera- 
tion. Only five States sent representatives and not one was 
from the South. Then Washington advised that a Convention 
be held at Philadelphia, and he urged all States to send dele- 
gates. Twelve States were represented. Washington was 
asked to preside, James Madison was made Secretary, and but 
for Madison, we would not today have any record of that 
Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was found impossible to 
revise the Articles of Confederation, so it was proposed to 

27 



form a National Government with executive, judicial and legis- 
lative departments. Edmund Randolph of Virginia, said 
"Leave out the word National." Charles Pinckney, of South 
Carolina, (a nephew of Charles Pinckney, of 1735), said, "We 
must have a head," and he suggested that the head be called 
President. Then he also proposed that Congress be divided 
into the House of Representatives and a Senate. When it 
came to the question as to who should vote, Maryland, Rhode 
Island and the smaller States objected to a vote by population 
on the score that too much power would thus be given the 
larger States, especially Virginia. Virginia, magnanimous 
then as she ever has been magnanimous, yielded without a 
question her claim to all of that Northwest Territory from 
which were made the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wis- 
consin, Michigan and a part of Minnesota. Then when the 
question of the vote of the slave-holder came, it was a North- 
ern delegate, I think from Connecticut, who proposed that the 
slave-holder should have three votes for every five slaves. 
Thus slavery became distinctly entrenched within the U. S. 
Constitution, and that too at the suggestion of the North. 

James Madison was the one who wrote the Constitution. 
Gladstone said it was the greatest State paper every written. 
When it was first presented for adoption, Patrick Henry said, 
"Who said, 'We the people?' It should be 'We the States,'" 
and so insistent was he that State Sovereignty should be 
stressed, that ten amendments became necessary before he 
would consent for Virginia to sign it. North Carolina waited 
a year before she signed it, and Rhode Island waited two years. 
There was never a doubt in Massachusett's mind that the Con- 
stitution gave the right to a State to secede, if her rights were 
ever interfered with. Many times she threatened to secede 
and no other State ever questioned her right to do it. Even 
Daniel Webster, that great statesman of the North, so inter- 
preted the Constitution to mean State Sovereignty. 

When the question arose of paying the war debt. South 
Carolina and Georgia paid more than their share and more 
than any other State unless Massachusetts be excepted. 

Do you not think then that the South was pre-eminent in 
this period? 

May I not pause here for a moment to make a statement 
which I think is just? While I am lauding Southern men and 
the part they played in the making of the Nation, I would not 
have you believe that I wish to overlook the great work done 

28 



by the great men of the North, for there were great men at 
the North. We can never as a people forget the debt the 
country owes to Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Robert Morris, 
Washington's friend who really financed the Revolution from 
his own personal means, nor John Jay, Rufus King, John 
Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Renjamin Franklin, Israel Put- 
nam, James Lawrence, Stephen Decatur, and many others, 
including Lafayette and our other foreign friends. Rut there 
is no danger that these men ever will be forgotten, for their 
deeds have been and will be always well recorded in history. 
What I am so earnestly stressing tonight are the unrecorded 
deeds of unrecorded heroes. The North js right to place 
before her young people the heroism, the fortitude, and the 
valor of the great men of the North, and so should we of the 
South, place before our young people the heroism, the forti- 
tude and the valor of the men of the South. 

Thomas Nelson Page says, "We are becoming more and 
more one people and the day is not far distant when there will 
be no South to demand a history." Are you willing to allow 
history as it is now written to go down to posterity? I am not. 
It represents our forefathers of the Revolution as "breeders 
of tyrants," "fomentors of treason," "defenders of slavery." 
It represents our Confederate fathers as "indolent, vain, 
haughty," "semi-barbarious, only saved by Northern civiliza- 
tion, illiterate, cruel slave drivers who strove to disrupt the 
Union in order to preserve the institution of slavery." That 
"secession was heresy, unconstitutional, untenable, and 
treasonable." It says also that our fathers of today are "an- 
nulling the Constitution, falsifying the ballot, and trampling 
under foot a weaker race because of race prejudice." It says 
"President Davis, Alexander Stephens, Howell Cobb, Robert 
Toombs and other rebels should have been hanged as traitors 
at the close of the Civil War." 

It has been a surprise to me that a people so proud of its 
ancestry, so assertive of its rights, so jealous of its reputation 
should be so indifferent to the preservation of its history. 

Do you wonder that I urged so strenuously this morning 
at our business meeting that we have a Chair of Southern 
History in the Teachers' College at Nashville, Tenn., endowed 
by theU. D. C? 

Ah! how I wish I could make you, Daughters of the Con- 
federacy, realize the importance of having our Southern 
teachers taught the truth of Southern history. Here in our 

29 



midst Southern young men and Southern young women are 
teaching in Southern schools the things unjust to the South, 
and do not know it. Why? Because they were taught from 
Northern text-books and they think it must be right, and they 
are still using Northern text-books. How can we expect the 
writers of Northern text-books to know what we do not know 
ourselves? No, Daughters, it is full time for the teachers of 
the South to realize this injustice to the South. 

You ask, "Why put that Chair of History in Tennessee?" 
Because Tennessee has the only Teachers' College in the South, 
and George Peabody who endowed it was a Marylander — only 
English by adoption. 

I hope the day is not far distant when there shall be in 
every university and college in our Southland such chairs 
endowed by the states and named as memorials for the great 
men of the South and men of the South who really know South- 
ern history placed in charge of them. How I should rejoice 
to see such a chair at our State University in Georgia and 
named for an honored graduate, Crawford W. Long, the dis- 
coverer of anaesthesia, the greatest boon poor suffering 
humanity has ever known. And Georgia is going to have it 
some day. 

Daughters of Florida, you should do the same for your 
Dr. Gorrie who taught us to manufacture ice. What a boon 
that has been in the sick-room and the hospital service! 

But I must hasten. We come now to the fifth period of our 
history, The Constitutional Period. 

I tried to show you at Washington last year how large a 
part Southern men had in the "Building of the Nation," so I 
will not repeat. Much concerning that period will be found 
in that published Washington Address. 

It was under the administrations of Washington, Jeffer- 
son, Monroe, Polk and Taylor that that vast extent of territory, 
2,100,000 square miles, two-thirds of the entire area of our 
country, was added to the United States. Indeed no very large 
territory was added under any other administration, unless we 
except Alaska, and that was added under a "so-called" South- 
ern President, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. But for these 
wise statesmen, France, Mexico, Spain and Russia would have 
firm foothold in our America today. 

There was only one "Era of Good Feeling," and that was 
in Monroe's administration. There was only one Monroe 
Doctrine and that came from a Virginia son. It has been the 

30 



most dominant political question of more than a century. 
Europe has stood before it perplexed and baffled. 

It was during Southern men's administrations that the 
cotton gin was invented and patented by a Southern man, 
Joseph Watkins, of Georgia; the steamboat became a possi- 
bility from the brain of a Southern man, James Rumsey, of 
Maryland, or William Longstreet, of Georgia; the passenger 
railroad propelled by steam became a possibility in a Southern 
State, South Carolina; the reaping machine by a talented 
Southern man, revolutionizing harvesting, Cyrus McCormick, 
of Virginia; the civil service reform which was first sug- 
gested by a Southern woman. Miss Perkins, of South Carolina ; 
and the sewing machine which was first invented by a South- 
ern man and used by a Southern woman, Francis Gould- 
ing, used by his wife. The Smithsonian Institution was given 
to the United States by England under a Southern man's 
administration (Polk). 

John Tyler of Virginia held the first Peace Conference. 
The American Navy was born under Jefferson's administra- 
tion. It was Washington's far-sightedness that kept America 
from being involved in the French Revolution. 

My! how many things we can claim for our dear old mis- 
represented Southland. 

The following are all Southern men. Do you know from 
what States? 

The Father of the Constitution, Madison? 

The Father of his Country, Washington? 

The Father of the Declaration, Jefferson? 

The Father of States Rights, Patrick Henry? 

The Bayard of the Revolution, John Laurens? 

The Great Expounder of the Constitution, John Marshall? 

The Supreme Political Thinker of the Age, George Mason ? 

The Cincinnatus of Mt. Vernon, Washington? 

The Great Pacificator, Henry Clay? 

The Great Nullifier, John C. Calhoun? 

The Pathfinder of the Ocean, Matthew Maury? 

Fiske, a Northern historian and so unjust in many ways 
to the South, says that the five men who shaped the American 
Nation were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall and 
Hamilton — four from the South. 

This brings us now to the sixth period, The Second War 
of Revolution, or the War of 1812. 

31 



Have you ever seen a true history of this period? I have 
not. The North did not want war with England, especially the 
New England States. Why? Because there was at that time 
in Massachusetts a spy from England arranging for the annex- 
ation of the New England States to England. You know, of 
course, that Massachusetts threatened to secede if war with 
England should be declared? No one knows what took place 
at that Hartford Convention, for the proceedings were kept 
secret, but it was well understood that the New England States 
wished to secede. It was Henry Clay that saw the danger. 
Not that he thought that those States had not the right to 
secede, but he did not wish to see the Union destroyed, and 
he felt that war must be declared to prevent any future inter- 
ference with American seamen. William Lowndes, of South 
Carolina, said, "Massachusetts must remember that injury to 
her commerce is also injury to the South's agriculture." It 
was necessary that war be declared before the New England 
States could secede. Fortunately Henry, the spy, turned 
traitor, and those states had nothing to do but to aid in carry- 
ing on the war, although the government had to compel their 
militia to serve in their country's defense. 

James Madison was the President at this time; Henry 
Clay was the Speaker of the House; John C. Calhoun of South 
Carolina, a member of Congress; William H. Crawford of 
Georgia, Secretary of War; George Campbell of Tennessee, 
Secretary of the Treasury; and Felix Grundy of Tennessee, a 
member of Congress. It was Langdon Cheves of South Caro- 
lina, who offered a resolution to increase the navy by forty- 
five frigates and twenty-five ships of the line. The United 
States navy had only 16 ships, England had 830. It was John 
C. Calhoun who offered the resolution declaring war. James 
Madison was inclined to veto the bill, but Henry Clay said 
that it would lose him all chance for renomination by the 
South, so he signed it. Henry Clay was asked to be the com- 
mander-in-chief of the army, but Congress said he could not 
be spared as Speaker of the House. Harrison of Virginia, was 
put over the forces in the Northwest; Hampton, the grand- 
father of our Confederate Wade Hampton, over the forces in 
the North; Andrew Jackson in the South. Every one of the 
six frigates afterwards so well known in the War of 1812, 
among them the Constitution, Wasp, and Hornet, were built 
at Norfolk, Va., and built of Georgia wood ! 

Rogers of Maryland fired the first shot from the President 

32 



into the Little Belt. Maryland suffered most because her coast 
was so exposed, but she has the honor of giving to our nation 
its National Anthem, "Star Spangled Banner," written at this 
period by her son, Francis Scott Key. 

Andrew Jackson was the hero of the Battle of New 
Orleans, the greatest victory over the British on American soil. 

The histories you studied and the ones you are now allow- 
ing your children to study will tell you that nothing was 
achieved by the Treaty of Ghent which brought peace. Indeed, 
one history will tell you "The War of Independence was direc- 
ted by a Higher Power, but the War of 1812 was an exhibition 
of unwarranted folly. It was brought on by the political ambi- 
tion of such men as John G. Galhoun and Henry Glay, and the 
country at large has had to suffer for the personal ambition 
of these two political demagogues." 

What ignorance! That war was just as necessary to 
secure freedom at sea from England's rule as the War of Inde- 
pendence was to gain freedom on land, and it effectually 
secured not only this freedom from British interference, but 
from interference by all other nations at sea. There can be 
no doubt that it increased respect abroad for the United States 
as a Nation, and greatly strengthened the national spirit at 
home. It sounded the death knell of the Federal party. 

Who were the heroes of Fort Meigs, Fort Stephenson, The 
Battles of York and the Thames and Lundy's Lane, but Har- 
rison, Grogan, Johnson and Scott? Who led that famous 
"Cockade" in 1812? Richard McRae of Virginia. See that 
monument at Petersburg, Va. 

When the war began the British Navy was singing 
"Britannia Rules the Waves," but when the war ended Amer- 
ican seamen were singing, "Hail, Columbia, Happy Land." 

Was not the South pre-eminent in this period? 

The War With Mexico is the seventh period of our history. 

Have you ever asked yourself the question, "Why so many 
of the men who fought in the Mexican War were from the 
South?" It is officially stated that two-thirds were. A South- 
ern man was in the White House, the two leaders were South- 
ern men, and the heroes of nearly every battle were from 
the South. The South has been misunderstood and therefore 
misrepresented by the historians of this period of history. 

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 left the negroes con- 
gested in the Southern States, for after Missouri was admitted 
as a State there could be no slaves above a certain degree of 

33 



latitude. Now there were many men in the South very anxious 
for the gradual emancipation of the slaves, for we were begin- 
ning to realize that under the institution of slavery the negro 
was the free man and the slaveholder was the slave. There 
were many who did not believe in slavery", but having inherited 
this property did not know how best to get rid of it. They 
realized what it has taken the North fifty years to learn, that 
it would never do to free them in the midst of an Anglo-Saxon 
race born to rule. Abraham Lincoln realized it, for he was try- 
ing in every way up to the time of his death to arrange for the 
colonization of the negro in Central America or Liberia. 
Edmund Randolph realized what it would mean. He wanted 
to free his slaves, but he said, "We have a wolf by the ear, to 
let him loose is dangerous, to hold him is equally dangerous." 

Thirty-two times the Virginia Legislature tried to abolish 
the slave trade. Massachusetts was the first State to legislate 
in favor of it, and Georgia was the first State to legislate 
against it. There were 130 abolition societies in the U. S. be- 
fore 1850, and 106 were in the South. We had 5,175 members 
and the North only had 1,162. 

By this War with Mexico the men of the South hoped for 
an extension of territory so as to make the gradual emancipa- 
tion of slaves a possibility. 

Santa Anna had acknowledged the independence of Texas, 
but Mexico refused to acknowledge it, so when Texas was ad- 
mitted as one of the United States, war was declared. 

The independence of Texas had been gained just as the in- 
dependence of the colonies, by right of arms. Can we ever 
forget those heroes of that conflict between Texas and Mexico? 
Moore, Houston, Fannin, Bowie, Crockett, Austin, Travis, Bon- 
ham, and many others equally as brave. Can we ever forget 
our heroes of that War with Mexico ? 

Who was so highly commended for engineering skill, but 
our beloved Robert E. Lee? Who was the hero of Buena Vista? 
Our Jefferson Davis. Can you not hear him now as he said, 
"Come, Mississippians; cowards to the rear, brave men to the 
front?" and those brave sons of Mississippi aided by equally 
brave Kentuckians followed their leader to victory. Who won 
Brazeto and Sacramento and captured Chihauhua? William 
Doniphan, "the Patrick Henry of Kentucky." Who was the hero 
of Chepultepec? Thomas Jackson, our Stonewall. Who were 
the heroes of Palo Alto, Matamoras, Resaca de la Palma? All 
Southern men. 

34 



Who planted the U. S. flag in the City of Mexico? Quit- 
man of Mississippi. Who first scaled the ramparts of Monte- 
rey? Rodgers of Alabama. And was not Daniel Hill of South 
Carolina called the bravest soldier of that war? And who 
wrote "The Bivouac of the Dead," which immortalized these 
heroes? Theodore O'Hara of Kentucky. 

Yes, Southern arms surely deserve the renown of that vic- 
tory. 

We are now brought to the eighth period of our history, 
The South on the Defensive, or the Abolition Crusade. 

I said that the South was pre-eminent in the last period, 
but was she allowed to reap the reward of her victory? Not at 
all. Seward and other Northern politicians gathered in Con- 
vention at Pittsburg, Pa., and arranged to so legislate that no 
slaves should be in this newly acquired territory. This natur- 
ally made the South indignant, for she resented the many acts 
of injustice that had been shown to her. She had been unjust- 
ly treated in the Tariff Acts of 1830 when Hayne and Calhoun 
of South Carolina boldly contended for her rights. Hayne 
said, "It is unconstitutional for a government to make laws to 
enrich one section and impoverish another," and he was right. 
The hiding of runaway slaves, and believing their representa- 
tions of plantation life rather than the representations of the 
Christian men of the South caused increased resentment. 
Thirty thousand of our negroes, the property of the planters, 
had been encouraged to run away and hidden from their own- 
ers by means of the so-called "Underground Railways" at the 
North, and sent across the line to Canada. 

As in family life, a child is punished if disobedient, so in 
plantation life a disobedient and unruly negro had to be pun- 
ished. Discipline had to be maintained on the plantation as 
in the home. Now it was more agreeable for that negro to run 
away and cross the border line where he knew he would be 
protected than to receive his just punishment. And it was per- 
fectly natural for this kind of negro to exaggerate his threat- 
ened punishment. He told the abolitionists that we yoked them 
to plows to cultivate our fields, and the abolitionist willing to 
believe this did so, not realizing that the negro was our salable 
property and that a $60 mule would be much cheaper for his 
work than a $1200 negro. He said that we used dogs to tear 
their flesh when we used bloodhounds to track the runaway. If 
an overseer, and these overseers were rarely Southern men, 
whipped a negro cruelly, as did sometimes happen on the large 

35 



plantations, but not oftener than parents sometimes whip 
cruelly a child, that overseer was at once dismissed. Had no 
other reason than a selfish reason prevailed, a slaveholder 
could not afford to have his property injured by brutal treat- 
ment. 

Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was found- 
ed on one of these cruel misrepresentations by a negro from a 
Mississippi plantation. Mrs. Stowe, of course, really believed it 
I to be true. But that book did more than any other one thing to 
^ bring on the War between the States. The South felt power- 
less to stem the tide of popular belief at the North, so fanatical 
did these political abolitionists become. 

A Georgia lawyer, Thos. R. R. Cobb, brought out about this 
time a book, "The Law of Slavery," which really is a most re- 
markable production. Every available authority upon the sub- 
ject of slavery among all nations was carefully studied and 
quoted. Coming about the time of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" it was 
suppressed in the North, and the war coming on prevented a 
second edition in the South. When William Lloyd Garrison 
heard that this book proved that the institution of slavery was 
defended by the Bible, he said, "Better then destroy the Bible," 
showing to what length his fanaticism led him. Fourteen 
Northern States passed "Personal Liberty Bills" and were vio- 
lating the Fugitive Slave Law which was included in Henry 
Clay's Omnibus Bill. The South feeling that this Omnibus Bill 
was unjust to her, accepted it, hoping to bring peace, when 
these same Northern States, violating the law, urged the elec- 
tion of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, and 
he was elected without a single electoral vote from the South, 
the Southern States felt no right would be respected and it was 
full time to secede. 

Yes, the North was pre-eminent in this period of our his- 
tory. 

The ninth period is The War Between the States. 

Eleven States rapidly seceded and the Confederate gov- 
ernment was formed at Montgomery, Ala. The blockade came 
almost with secession. Had the South found a market for her 
cotton and tobacco possibly the surrender would never have 
taken place. Or had the prisoners been exchanged as Presi- 
dent Davis and Gen. Howell Cobb so strenuously urged. Gen. 
Lee would not have been obliged to surrender. Of one thing I 
am assured the horrors of Andersonville Prison could have 
been averted. 

36 



Do you ask would it have been better had the South been 
victorious? I must say No, God knew best. Far better to have 
a Nation as we now have with such a man as Woodrow Wilson 
at the head, supported by those strong Democratic leaders 
from North and South, wisely doing the things which stand for 
right, than to be Sovereign States, as we would have been, the 
prey of any petty republic which desired to interfere with us. 

The war did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter. It 
began when Lincoln ordered 2,400 men and 285 guns to the de- 
fense of Sumter. The surrender was not due to Federal vic- 
tories, but to Confederate exhaustion. The Confederate forces 
were 1 to 5. One hundred and seventy-five thousand men sur- 
rendered to 1,050,000. The North lost as many men at the bat- 
tles of Wilderness and Spotsylvania as were lost in the French 
and Indian wars, the Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Mex- 
ican War combined. 

Yes, the North came out pre-eminent in this period of our 
history. 

You know this history better probably than you do any 
other, so I shall rapidly pass to the next, which is the eleventh 
—The Humiliated South or The Reconstruction Period. 

After the surrender the soldiers returned to their homes, 
where homes remained, oppressed and depressed. They lit- 
erally had nothing left but the ground upon which they stood. 
Families scattered, negroes freed, banks closed, no currency 
available. The slaveholder knowing less than his overseer and 
slaves about the practical part of farming. The lav^^er had no 
clients, the teacher had no pupils, the merchant had no credit, 
the doctor had no drugs. Ah! it was pitiful! Georgia and 
South Carolina suff'ered most on account of the desolation 
caused by Sherman's March to the Sea. 

This was the time when those women of the Confederacy 
showed of what stuff they were made. They put their loving 
arms about those husbands and sons and they said "We are not 
conquered, we are just overpowered, and we think it was bet- 
ter that you fought, even if you did not win, than never to have 
fought at all. The South is going to come out all right, you 
wait and see." What prophets they were, for is not the South 
today the Nation's greatest asset? 

They began to collect the bodies of the Confederate sol- 
diers scattered over the battlefields, placing them where they 
could care for them, and where they could deck those graves 
with flowers. Then they began to erect monuments over them. 

37 



The men said, "We cannot help you, for we are under an oath 
of allegiance." The women said, "We are under no oath," and 
the work went on. Ben Butler, in Louisiana, said we should 
not build monuments to our Confederate dead, and so said 
Meade, in Georgia, but we did it anyway, didn't we? They did 
not know Southern women. More monuments stand to the 
Confederate soldier today than to any other soldier of any 
other nation who ever fought for any cause. 

Had not Lincoln been assassinated, all would have gone 
well even then, for the negroes still loved their old owners, and 
did not wish to leave them. Indeed they were like little chil- 
dren, they did not know how to make a living for themselves, 
and they did know that "ole marster" would never let them 
suffer. Lincoln's death was the worst blow that could have 
befallen the South. Lincoln was not such a great negro lover as 
has been represented in history. He was Southern born and 
knew the true relation between the owner and his slaves. It is 
true he did not believe in slavery, neither did Washington, nor 
Jefferson, nor Mason, nor many other leading men of the 
South. Stonewall Jackson never owned but two slaves in his 
life and they begged him to buy them. But Lincoln was an 
intense Union man, and he determined to preserve the Union at 
all hazards. If he could do it with slavery, all right; if not, 
slavery must go. His Emancipation Proclamation did not free 
the negroes as a race. It freed your father's slaves, and my 
father's slaves, but it did not free Gen. Grant's slaves, nor the 
slaves in Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, Deleware, and other 
States where slaves still remained after the War. This Procla- 
mation, the result of a rash vow, was only a measure to punish 
the seceding States. He had said in his Inaugural Address the 
South need not fear his interference with their slaves. The 
slaves were not really freed until a Southern raan, John Hen- 
derson of Missouri, proposed the 13th Amendment to the Con- 
stitution after Lincoln's death. But had Abraham Lincoln lived, 
he never would have stood for that Reconstruction measure of 
Thad Stevens. We would never have been put under military 
rule and divided into Districts; we would never have had the 
Freedman's Bureau to humiliate us; he would never have stood 
for social equality in the South, he knew the thought of the 
people too well; we would not have had that rule of the carpet- 
bagger and scalawag in the South, and I am perfectly sure he 
would never have stood for that Exodus Order of Thad Stev- 
ens's, which more than any other one thing is responsible for 

38 



the present day negro problem. That Order tore more chil- 
dren from their parents than was ever done in all the years of 
slavery by any slave block. 

That Stevens saw that the negroes were remaining with 
their old owners and he could not accomplish the plans laid for 
social equality of the negro in the South. He told them if they 
remained with their former owners they would be made slaves 
again, and ordered that no two families could remain upon the 
same plantation. This caused a separation of families and a 
rending of ties and a fearful alienation between whites and 
blacks followed. The faithful mammies would not leave 
"marster's white chile," and that is the reason so many were 
found many years after freedom still with their former owners. 

Oh! Daughters of the Confederacy, members of our In- 
diana Chapters, there was a friend of the South from your In- 
diana in those awful Reconstruction days. As our Mr. Cun- 
ningham has been instrumental in erecting a memorial to Mr. 
Owens who was so good to our prisoners during the War, so I 
would like to see you erect some memorial to that Democratic 
Congressman so anxious to help the South in this hour of her 
need. I refer to Dan Vorhees, of Indiana. He said it was a 
shame to make dead provinces out of living States. He said 
the South was a white man's country and should be kept so, 
but that Reconstruction Committee would not listen to his 
pleading. 

The Ku Klux Klan was an absolute necessity in the South 
at this time. This Order was not composed of the "riff raff" 
as has been represented in history, but of the very flower of 
Southern manhood. The chivalry of the South demanded pro- 
tection for the women and children of the South. 

Yes, the North was pre-eminent in this period of our his- 
tory, but does not the South stand out in no uncertain light? It 
has proven to the world that she can be as brave in defeat as 
in victory; she can stand humiliation and lawlessness with 
Christian resignation; she can bear and forbear, and yet suffer 
in silence; and while having far more to forgive and forget, she 
has a heart ever ready to do the things that make for peace, 
and stands ready today to stretch forth her hand in the true 
spirit of reconciliation. 

The record of the Confederate soldier, the heroism of the 
Confederate women, the monuments erected to Southern valor 
have caused the whole world to be lost in admiration and won- 
der. 

39 



Now comes The Second Period of Adjustment. 

It was very hard for our Southern men unused to manual 
labor of any kind to try to adjust themselves to the new order 
of things in the South. It really was easier for the women than 
for the men, and some men never did get adjusted, and some 
women have never been reconstructed. 

The kitchens in the old civilization were never in the 
house, but some distance from it. There was no need that they 
should be in the house then, for there were plenty of young ne- 
groes to run back and forth with the hot waffles, the hot egg 
bread, the biscuits and the battercakes. But when the women 
of the South had to go into the kitchen after the negroes left, 
or had become too impertinent to be allowed around the house, 
the inconveniences were greatly felt. You must remember 
there was rarely such a thing as a cooking stove before the 
War. All cooking had to be done in an open fireplace, with 
oven and pots. There were no water works, and all water had 
to be drawn from the well or brought from the spring. There 
were no electric lights, no gas lights, no kerosene lamps even, 
and lard lamps were really a rarity used only by the rich. The 
dependence for light were wax, tallow and sperm candles. The 
wood had to be cut and the chips had to be picked up, and all 
this consumed time and required great patience. This was the 
beginning of the breaking up of home life in the South and it 
proved the death blow to the old time Southern hospitality. 
Things began to brighten, however, as the years rolled by, for 
the new homes in the South began to add the kitchen to the 
house and conveniences were gradually introduced, so that 
with gas stoves, electric plates and fireless cookers our South- 
ern women are as independent today as the women of the 
North, and can cook as good a meal with as little trouble, and 
wash and iron too, if need be. They really have more sym- 
pathy and more patience with the negro help than the women 
of the North, and really are more anxious to aid the negroes in 
the right way. 

The twelfth period is The Industrial South or The South 
Coming to Her Own. 

We had been an agricultural people before the War be- 
tween the States, and were satisfied to be. We never realized 
the possibilities in our grasp. We did not know that we had 
9,000,000 horsepower in our streams of the South. We did not 
know that we could make anything worth while out of the cot- 
ton seed we were yearly throwing away. We did not know 

40 



that there was untold wealth lying beneath our feet, but we 
know it now. South Carolina first began to realize the possi- 
bilities in her cotton mills. She discovered that she was sell- 
ing her cotton crop every year to Massachusetts for $30,000,000, 
and Massachusetts was making it into cloth and thread and 
selling it for $100,000,000. The thought came, "Why may I not 
keep that money in my own State?" and that is what South 
Carolina is doing today, and other Southern States are follow- 
ing her example. 

I think the Spanish-American War did much to make the 
South realize her own powers. At least it made the two sec- 
tions know each other better. That war taught us loyalty to 
the United States flag, which we had not loved during those 
four years of war, and during those seven years of Reconstruc- 
tion which followed. But when our boys put on that uniform 
of blue, and fought under the Stars and Stripes side by side 
with the boys of the North we began to feel it was our flag as 
much as it was the flag of the North. The South showed that 
she was again loyal to the Union, for more volunteers from 
Southern States, in proportion to population, went to that war 
than from any of the Northern States, and our boys made 
themselves known, too. 

Who was commander-in-chief of the Atlantic Squadron? 

Winfield Scott Schley. Who was made Minister to Ha- 
vana? Fitzhugh Lee. Who was called "The Wizard of the 
Saddle?" Joe Wheeler. Who commanded the Brooklyn when 
Cervera's fleet was destroyed? Schley. What vessel fired the 
first shot of the war? The "Nashville," commanded by Mayn- 
ard of Tennessee. Who fired the first shot at Manilla ? Stoak- 
ley Morgan of Arkansas. Who was promoted for gallantry on 
the field? Micah Jenkins of South Carolina. Who shed the 
first blood of the war? John B. Gibbs of Virginia. Who was 
the first to fall in battle? Worth Bagiey of North Carolina. 
Who was Dewey"s right-hand man? Tom Brumby of Georgia. 
Who was the hero of Santiago Bay? Winfield S. Schley. Who 
was the backbone of the Santiago campaign? Joe Wheeler. 
Who sank the ships to block the enemy and saved the day? 
Hobson of Alabama. Who raised the flag at Manilla ? Brum- 
by of Georgia. Who was sent with a message to Garcia? Row- 
an of Virginia. Who was sent to count the ships in Santiago 
Bay? Victor Blue of South Carolina. Every one our Southern 
boys. Then who was put in command of the American troops 
in the Philippines? Ewell S. Otis. Who was made Governor 

41 



of the Philippines? Luke Wright of Memphis. And does this 
not show our boys of the South equalled in courage and hero- 
ism the boys of the North? 

Who shall say then, that we did not share the honors dur- 
ing this period of our history? 

And now we come to the thirteenth and last period of our 
history — The Triumphant South. 

Do you know that three-fourths of all the cotton in the 
world is raised in the South? Do you know that Europe pays 
the South annually $600,000,000 for her cotton, and that is only 
one-third of the products the South supplies to her? Yes, Cot- 
ton is King, and that American king was born in Georgia. Do 
you know that three-fourths of all the sulphur mined in the 
world comes from the South, and all used in the United States 
comes from Louisiana? Do you know that Louisiana sulphur 
mines dominate not only the sulphur trade of America, but all 
Europe? Do you know that three-fourths of all the coal in the 
U. S. is in the South? Do you know that seven-eighths of all 
the forest area of the United States is in the South? Do you 
know that the only diamond mines out of Africa are in Ark- 
ansas? Do you know that all the phosphate beds of the United 
States are in the South? 

Do you know that Tennessee's coal is better than Pennsyl- 
vania's coal? Do you know that Georgia's marble is better 
than Vermont's marble? Do you know that Texas' oil wells 
produce annually 85,000,000 barrels of oil — far more prolific 
than those of Pennsylvania? Do you know that Joseph Wat- 
kins of Georgia patented the cotton gin one year before Eli 
Whitney? Do you know that the largest cotton warehouse in 
the world, covering 161 acres of land, is in Memphis, Tenn.? 
Do you know that Georgia mills are making velvet, and 
Georgia mills are making the thread from which are made 
those beautiful curtains in your Philadelphia homes? Do you 
know how many lumber mills there are in the South? Ask the 
Manufacturer's Record. I know that the largest saw mill in the 
United States is in Arkansas. Do you know that the largest 
fertilizer plant in the world is in Charleston? Do you know 
that the largest sulphuric acid plant is in Tennessee? Do you 
know that lead was first mined in Mississippi? 

Do you know that our corn equals that of Iowa? our wheat 
that of Illinois? our oats that of Ohio? our apples those of the 
East? and that our Georgia peach is the best in the World? 

42 



Do you know that Dr. Seaman Knapp, for whom Tennes- 
see's Agricultm'al College is named, was a Louisiana man? 
Do you know that the pioneer of scientific agriculture was Ed- 
mund Ruffin of Virginia? Do you know that "The Rural Phil- 
osopher" was John Taylor of Virginia? Do you know that the 
first professor of economics and statistics was James De Bow 
of Louisiana? 

I do not believe you know what our Agricultural colleges 
are doing to make the South realize her own greatness. One 
county in Georgia has 41 different kinds of soil, and experts 
are finding out all sorts of things about our Southern soils. 
V^hy, we are furnishing food and fibre for the world, and there 
lies beneath our feet yet untold undeveloped wealth. The 
South has 55 different minerals. 

We have no right to cry hard times in the South, it is a dis- 
ease we have caught from others. Our nearness to Panama 
will make us the center of the world's trade, and Panama 
would not be habitable, would it, but for our William Gorgas 
of Alabama? As we have one-half of the sea coast of the 
United States, the South will be the logical point for the future 
naval displays of the world. 

No, we do not realize our own greatness, because we do 
not know our own country. It is a great country this United 
States of ours. It spans a Continent; it is the youngest, yet it is 
the noblest of all the nations of the world. Nature has really 
seemed partial to the South, for while she has given great 
stretches of land to the West much of it is barren waste. While 
she has given great fertility to the North and East half the year, 
there is icy bleakness the remaining half. To the South she has 
given almost perpetual spring; we scarcely know when sum- 
mer ends and winter begins; when winter ends and spring be- 
gins. Half waj^ between icy bleakness and tropical heat, par- 
taking of the advantages of both but not injured by the disad- 
vantages of either. We have soil and climate the most won- 
derful in the world; rainfall abundant but not in excess. Situ- 
ated in the latitude of the Holy Land we are the home of the 
orange, the pineapple and the banana; the home of the rose, 
the jasmine and the oleander; the home of the palm and the 
live oak and the magnolia; the home of the pomegranate, the 
apple, and the peach; the home of the pecan, the walnut and 
the chestnut, to say nothing of the watermelon, "the 'possum 
and the 'taters." 

Bathed on the East by the Atlantic Ocean, tempered by the 

43 



warm waters of the Gulf Stream; on the South by the tepid 
waters of the Gulf of Mexico; on the West reaching to Mexico 
and California, the land of flowers; protected on the North- 
west, by the grand old Rockies from Alaska's icy blasts. The 
Mississippi, "The Father of Rivers," flowing through our entire 
length of States; the Appalachian range on the eastern shore, 
with its highest peak in North Carolina; the Blue Ridge run- 
ning toward us and ending in that geological monstrosity — our 
Stone Mountain of Georgia. Nature has worked wonders in 
our midst — the Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, the Natural 
Bridge in Virginia, the bottomless Blue Spring in Florida, and 
the Tallulah Falls of Georgia. 

Are we teaching patriotism to our children? Do you ask 
me, "What is patriotism?" My! What magic in the word. 
Love and loyalty to home and country. Love as tender as that 
of a mother for a child; loyalty so unselfish as to forget self. 
Patriotism is the spark that kindles the Nation's fire; it is the 
fountain from which the Nation's prosperity flows; it is the hel- 
met that shields the Nation's life; it is the shield that guards 
the Nation's home. 

Patriotism is inborn and if you have it not, you are ab- 
normal. (Laughter.) It should begin with love of God, then 
love of home, then love of country, then love of State, then love 
of place. America is a Christian country, ours by Divine gift. 
Liberty is God's acknowledgement that we are capable of re- 
ceiving the gift. 

Our government has no model, nothing like it in the world. 
A government of the people, by the people, for the people. 
Benjamin Hill, our "silver-tongued orator" said, "It was 
planned not by human wisdom but by Divine guidance. The 
Romans never dreamed of it; the Greeks never could have con- 
ceived it; the European mind never could have evolved it." 
Alexander Stephens said that the creed of patriotism is "Im- 
provement of the mind, erection of schools and temples of 
learning, interest in the things that make for industry, and 
good will to all men!" 

A patriot is one who saves his country's honor. You were 
patriots. Veterans, for you saved your country's honor, and 
now, God bless you, you have lived to see your country's tri- 
umph. Everything you fought for has been acknowledged by 
those against whom you fought. Even Harriet Beecher Stowe's 
son. Rev. Charles Stowe, has publicly said that there was a re- 
bellion but it was the North that rebelled against the Constitu- 

44 



tion: that slavery could not have been the unmitigated evil it 
has been represented to be, or one could not account for the 
faithfulness of the slaves when the men of the South were at 
the front; that there was undoubtedly some good in a civiliza- 
tion which could produce such a beautiful Christian character 
as "Uncle Tom." 

Veterans, "heroes in grey, with hearts of gold," it was 
harder to live after the war than it was to face the bullets on 
battlefields, wasn't it? 

Yes, the South is triumphant today! She is not only the 
Nation's greatest asset, but she is the world's greatest asset. 
This is the Golden Age — an age of great power, buoyant 
strength, great wealth, and freedom to run an unhindered race. 
But we must remember that there is a danger in golden ages. 
Hannibal lost the fruits of his victories by the orange groves 
and vineyards of Campania. Mark Antony lost his by the al- 
luring charms of a Cleopatra. Let us then beware lest greed 
of gold, selfishness, or intemperance engulf us. Let the public 
weal be as the apple of our eye. Let us keep the ballot box 
pure. Let duty ever be our watchword. 

Sail on, thou great and mighty Ship of States, sail on over 
billows and through storms and seas, sail on. 

May balmy breezes and gentle winds waft thee into a safe 
and quiet harbor. May thy keel be strong, thy sails pure and 
white. May duty be thy polar star. Sail on, sail on, undaunted 
by Mexico's threatening waves, by Panama's alluring charms, 
by selfish trusts, by tariff blasts, yes, by women's votes, sail on, 
and thou shalt surely enter into Rest and Peace, if we as pat- 
riots will only firmly stand, and knowing the right dare to 
maintain it. 

One last word : 

Now, Daughters of the Confederacy, teach, I pray you, 
your children this : 

"Though we were overpowered, we were not degraded, 
Southern laurels have never faded; 
All is not lost unto us. 
Only baseness can undo us. 
Kneeling at your country's altar 
Teach your children not to falter 

Till the right shall rule in Dixie." 



45 



Addr 



ess 



Delivered By 

Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford 

Historian General 

United Daughters of the 

Confederacy 



Wrongs of History Righted 



Savannah, Georgia 
Friday, Nov. 13, 1914 



REFERENCES: 

I. Causes that Led to the War Between the States. 

The United States Constitution. 

The South: Constitution and Resulting Union — Dr. J. L. M. 
i Curry. 

George Bancroft's United States History. 

Life of Stonewall Jackson — Henderson. 

The South in the Building of the Nation. 13 Vols. 

The Abolition Crusade — Hilary Herbert. 

H. The Institution of Slavery in the South. 

The Old South— Thomas Nelson Page. 

Religion and Slavery — Rev. James H. McNeilly. 

The Old Virginia Gentleman — Bagby. 

History of the United States — Percy Greg. 
; The Old South and the New — Charles Morris. 

The Story of the Confederate States — Derry. 

Civil History of the Confederate Government — Curry. 

HL Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lincoln. 
Davis: 

Memoirs of Judge Reagan. 

Higher History of the United States — H. E. Chambers. 

The History of the Confederate States Navy — ScharfF. 

Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government — Jefferson Davis. 
Lincoln: 

The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Herndon, 1st ed. 

The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Herndon & Weik. 

The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Lamon. 

The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Nicolay & Hay. 

IV. Political Differences. 

Alexander Stephens in Public and Private with Letters and 

Speeches — Cleveland. 
Morse's Lincoln. 
Congressional Records. 
War of the Rebellion. 

Barnes' Popular History of the United States. 
The Confederate Veteran. 

V. Barbara Frietchie — Myth. 

Letters from Whittier and testimony of others who lived at that 
time. 

VI. Andersonville Prison and Trial of Major Wirz. 

War of the Rebellion — Congressional Records. 

Life of Benjamin H. Hill— B. H. Hill, Jr. 

The Southern View of Andersonville — Dr. R. R. Stevenson. 

Andersonville Prison from a Prisoner's Standpoint — James M. 

Page. 
Autograph Letters from Andersonville Prisoners. 
Letters from General Grant to General Butler, City Point, August 

18, 1864. 
Address to U. C, V. by Dr. Kerr, Corsicana, Texas. 

VII. Cruelties in Northern Prisons. 

Constitutional View of the War between the States — Alexander 

H. Stephens. 
The Official Acts of the Confederate States. 
Letters from Alexander Stephens. 

Ulysses S. Grant. 

Jefferson Davis. 

Robert Ould. 

John E. Mulford. 

Ben. Butler. 
Articles in "National Intelligencer," Washington, D. C. 

Ciii't 
^>U i IS22 




Wrongs Of HiSory Righted 

Y OBJECT this evening is not to stress the omissions 
of history, but rather to urge that some of the 
wrongs that have already entered history be righted. 
We of the South have borne too long and too 
patiently the many misrepresentations concerning us, and we 
cannot afford to be patient longer. There is hope that some of 
the omissions may enter future history, but what hope can 
there be of these misrepresentations ever being righted if we 
neglect to do it now? They have condemned us; they are con- 
demning us ; and they will continue to condemn us, if we longer 
remain indifferent. Let us remember what Dr. Curry said, 
"If history as now written is accepted it will consign the South 
to infamy." 

When sons and daughters of Veterans write articles for 
newspapers and magazines, condemning the principles for 
which their Confederate fathers fought, and even stand for a 
changed Constitution that will overthrow the very bulwark of 
the South — state sovereignty — it is full time for the Daughters 
of the Confederacy and Veterans to become insistent that the 
truths of history shall be written, and that those truths shall 
be correctly taught in our schools and colleges. 

So long as we send our Southern boys to Harvard to be 
taught "The Essentials of American History" by Dr. Albert 
Bushnell Hart, so long may we expect them to question the 
principles for which their fathers fought. Now understand, I 
do not object to Dr. Hart, who is a scholar of renown, teaching 
the Hamiltonian theory of the Constitution to his Northern 
boys, for that is as they should be taught, but our Southern 
boys should be sent to Southern universities to be taught the 
Jeffersonian theory of the Constitution. And so long as we 
have teachers in our educational institutions who have been 
taught by Dr. Hart, or by teachers who believe as Dr. Hart 
teaches, so long may we expect our sons and our daughters 
to be untrue to the South and the things for which the South 
stands. 

49 



The responsibility is yours, mothers and fathers, to know 
the training your children are receiving; to know by whom 
taught, whether true or false to all we hold dear. Only in this 
way can we stem the tide of falsehoods that have crept in, 
and are still creeping into the newspapers in our homes, into 
the books in our libraries, and into the textbooks that we are 
allowing to be used in our schools. 

I understand that in one of our leading universities of the 
South during the past year two of the professors stated in their 
classrooms that the South had never produced a great man. 
Think of it! A section which gave the author of the Bill of 
Rights, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the au- 
thor of the United States Constitution, the author of the Mon- 
roe Doctrine; a section that gave the commander of the forces 
of the Revolution, the leaders both on land and on sea of the 
War of 1812, both leaders of the War with Mexico, the leaders 
North and South in the War between the States, and the men 
most prominent in the Spanish- American War; a section that 
gave the first President of the United States, indeed gave 
twelve Presidents to the United States, as well as the President 
of the Confederate States; a section that gave a Robert E. Lee, 
and a Stonewall Jackson; a section that gave an Edgar Allan 
Poe and a Sidney Lanier; a section that gave a Matthew Maury 
and a Crawford W. Long — yes, a section that gave Woodrow 
Wilson, the man of the hour and the man of the age, said to 
have never produced a great man ! 

Where could these men have been educated but in some 
anti-South atmosphere! Shall such men as these be allowed to 
teach the youth of the South true history? 

My object tonight is to urge you. Daughters of the Con- 
federacy, to aid in having these wrongs of history righted, and 
when I urge you to do this, I urge you to do it without bitter- 
ness or prejudice or narrowness. As we demand truth and 
justice, that we must give. Let us be careful to rule out of our 
Southern textbooks anything that is unjust to the North, and 
justice compels me to say that wrongs to the North have at 
times entered into some of our books by Southern writers. 
Then, too, let us in our search for truth be ever ready to give 
authority for every statement we make, and require the same 
of others. 

While there are many misrepresentations concerning us in 
the history which antedates the sixties, yet in my limited time 
tonight I must confine these misrepresentations to the period 

50 



which pertains to the War between the States. And, Daughters, 
I mean the War between the States. 

Ours was not a Civil War, so let us correct that wrong first. 
The United States was a Republic of Sovereign States. We 
were not a Nation until the surrender left it impossible for a 
state to secede. A civil war must be in one state between two 
parties in that state. If we acknowledge that ours was a Civil 
War, we acknowledge we were a Nation, or one State in 1861 
and not a Republic of Sovereign States, and therefore had no 
right to secede. This is what the North would like us to 
acknowledge. 

It was not a War of Secession as some would have us to 
call it. The Southern States seceded with no thought of war. 
They simply wished to have a government where their rights, 
reserved by the Constitution, should be respected. The war 
was caused by the North attempting to coerce us back into the 
Union, contrary to the Constitution, and for no reason save 
that the states of the South demanded their rights. If we call it 
a War of Secession we admit the seceding states brought on 
the war. 

It was not a War of Rebellion, for sovereign states cannot 
rebel, therefore secession was not rebellion. This is acknowl- 
edged now by all thinking men. 

It was not a War of Sections. The North did not fight the 
South, for brothers were arrayed against brothers in many 
cases. There were many men of the South who enlisted on 
the Union side. There were many men of the North who en- 
listed on the Southern side. Both North and South were con- 
tending for a principle and not because they hated each other. 

It was the War Between the States, for the non-seceding 
States of the United States made war upon the seceding States 
of the United States to force them back into the Union. Please 
call it so, and teach it so. 

I. 

A wrong to be righted must be the Causes that led to the 
War Between the States, for injustice is too often done us by 
ascribing wrong motives to our secession. 

These causes far antedate the firing on Fort Sumter, so un- 
fairly said to have begun the war. To really get at the root 
of the matter, we must go back to that Constitutional Conven- 
tion in 1787, after the Treaty of Paris had left the Colonies 
free, sovereign and independent States. 

51 



Two political parties were formed at this Convention — 
the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, stand- 
ing for a centralized government, were led by Alexander Ham- 
ilton, claiming that all states owed allegiance to the Federal 
government as the absolute head of the Nation. Now it was 
perfectly natural for Alexander Hamilton to take this view of 
the Constitution and think we were a Nation, for he was 
foreign born — a native of the West Indies. His father and 
mother before him had served a king, and while he had been 
sent at an early age to America to be educated, yet this love for 
and belief in monarchy was an inheritance. 

The Anti-Federalists, later called Republicans, but far dif- 
ferent from the anti-South party of the same name today, or- 
ganized in 1854, were led by Thomas Jefferson, standing for 
local self-government, and the right of any state to withdraw 
from the Union of States, when a right reserved to it by the 
Constitution was interfered with. It was perfectly natural for 
Thomas Jeiferson to have this view of the Constitution. The 
plantation life in the old South made every planter a law to 
himself, and it was this that has made Southern men ever so 
tenacious of their State rights. You may say, Thomas Jefferson 
was in Paris in 1787 and not at that Constitutional Convention. 
That is true, but he had well instructed Madison, Henry, Ran- 
dolph and Pinckney concerning the points to be stressed before 
any new document was signed by Southern States. The Con- 
stitution was not fully adopted, you must remember, unti^ after 
Jefferson's return. 

Climate and heredity made the two sections different from 
the very first — the Northern colonies standing for trade, man- 
ufactures, and commerce; the Southern colonies standing for 
agricultural pursuits and export — but so long as a balance of 
power was maintained, when voting time came, all went well 

The question of slavery did not enter into the platform ol 
the two parties at all, for all states owned slaves, the right 
given by the Constitution, and they saw no harm in slavery. It 
is tr\ c the slave trade was a source of deep concern on the part 
of th& majority of the states, and the Southern States seemed 
really more concerned about this than the Northern. Georgia 
was the first state to legislate against the slave trade; the Caro- 
linas legislated against it as early as 1760; Virginia, in 1778, 
and in all "the old mother state" legislated against it 32 times. 
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence had a protest against the slave trade, and John Ad- 

52 



ams of Massachusetts, advised that it be stricken out. Massa- 
chusetts was the first state to legislate in favor of the slave 
trade. New Jersey was the last state to legislate against it, and 
New York never did legislate against it, so really Massachusetts 
and New York were carrying on the slave trade in violation of 
the United States law as late as 1860. 

At a glance one may see how unjust have been the accu- 
sations concerning the South in regard to the question of 
slavery. The trouble really between the two political parties 
was caused by a different interpretation of the Constitution as 
to what rights were reserved to the States, and whether the 
Union of States was a Nation or a Republic. 

The invention of the cotton gin undoubtedly led to the 
war. On account of a cold climate, unfavorable to the negro's 
physical make-up, as well as because manufacturing interests 
were unsuited to negro labor, the Northern States sold their 
slaves, in large part to the Southern planters. This gave free 
labor in the South, and hired labor in the North. Great pros- 
perity came to the South when cotton could be so easily raised 
and ginned, and there threatened to be an over-balance of vot- 
ing power by the slave States. Sectional jealousies were en- 
gendered and contentions then began. 

In 1803 when a Southern President and a slaveholder, 
Thomas Jefferson, secured the purchase of the Louisiana Ter- 
ritory, that large extent of acres, more than double the area of 
the other States at that time, Massachusetts was filled with 
alarm and threatened to secede and form a Northern Confed- 
eracy, and Josiah Quincy advised it on sectional grounds. 
When Jefferson assured them that he was not a President of a 
section but the President of the whole country, and that he 
would not violate the Constitution by giving one section an ad- 
vantage over another, Massachusetts' fears were quieted. 

When in 1811 trouble arose about the United States Bank, 
the legislature of Pennsylvania agitated nullification as justi- 
fiable by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Why later 
was Calhoun villified for his nullification views? Again, there 
was trouble in 1812 when the New England States threatened 
to form a Northern Confederacy if war with England was de- 
clared. The South said there would never be freedom from 
England on sea unless war was declared, and only the great 
victory at New Orleans prevented the withdrawal of the New 
England States at that time. 

53 



Then in 1820 when Missouri asked to come in as a slave 
State, and because Missouri was cut out of the Louisiana Terri- 
tory, Massachusetts feared too much power to slave States and 
again threatened to withdraw. Thomas, of Illinois, offered a 
compromise measure to forbid any State above 36° 30" latitude 
holding slaves. This bill was finally amended to except Mis- 
souri. In Northern histories, and Southern histories have fol- 
lowed their lead, it has been over and over again stated, and I 
have myself often made the same mistake, that Henry Clay 
was responsible for this amendment. It worried me greatly, 
for it was a direct violation of the U. S. Constitution, and a flag- 
rant interference of State's rights. I hated to think a Southern 
man was responsible for it. You may imagine my delight when 
upon reading the "Life of Henry Clay" I found that he denied 
having anything to do with it. He was the Speaker of the 
House at the time and took no part in the debates on the floor. 
Eminent statesmen of the South felt the injustice of this com- 
promise and did not hesitate to say so. John C. Calhoun never 
was reconciled to it. But it was finally accepted, just for the 
sake of peace. 

In 1828 and again in 1832 and 1833 Tariff Acts were passed 
which were unjust to the South and a direct violation of the 
Constitution, because they favored one section over another. 
These Acts were such an interference with our States' rights 
that Calhoun stood for nullifying them — hence he was called 
"The Nullifier." I have never been able to understand why 
Calhoun should have been so villified when he proposed a 
Southern Confederacy at this time and nothing was said when 
Massachusetts and the New England States proposed a North- 
ern Confederacy. 

John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, was one of the real 
prophets of the age, for everything he warned us against has 
actually come true, and had we heeded him many valuable 
lives might have been saved. The "child of secession" was 
really born in that contest between Robert Y. Hayne of South 
Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, over the Foot 
Resolutions. 

The unequal disbursement of the funds in the U. S. Treas- 
ury was also felt to be unjust to the South. The South was pay- 
ing into the treasry two-thirds of all the money there; yet the 
veterans of the Revolutionary War were paid three times the 
amount in pensions in the North that they were in the South; 
the appropriations for roads, harbors and rivers amounted to 

54 



five times as much for the North as the South and the money 
expended for internal improvements ten times as much; 
twenty-three lighthouses were in the North to ten in the South, 
and eighteen custom houses in the North to one in the South. 
The sea coast of the South was 3,000 miles in extent, and that 
of the North only 900 miles, yet five harbors were in the North 
to one in the South. Under these circumstances what could the 
South expect in just legislation? 

In 1854 when Texas asked to come into the Union as a 
slave State, Massachusetts said then she must withdraw, for 
that would give too much slave territory. When war was de- 
clared with Mexico the North had few men comparatively to 
volunteer and when the cause was won by Southern arms the 
North, by legislation, tried to manage it so that the South 
should have no part of the acquired territory as slave territory. 
In 1847 the Wilmot Proviso was proposed, but fortunately did 
not become a law, but it showed the tendency of the Northern 
mind. In 1849 gold was discovered in California and the North 
wanted it to be a free State. By the Missouri Compromise it 
should have been half slave territory as half of the State was 
below the degree of latitude prescribed by the Compromise. 
Trouble was brewing when "The Peacemaker," Henry Clay, 
proposed his Omnibus Bill in 1850. This included the "Five 
Bleeding Wounds," namely: 

Let California come in as a free State. 

Let Utah and New Mexico come in free or slave as they de- 
sire. 

Let the slave trade be excluded from the District of Co- 
lumbia. 

Let Texas be paid for the territory claimed by New 
Mexico. 

Let the Fugitive Slave Law be enforced. 

Now this virtually repealed the Missouri Compromise, but 
still it was violating States' rights. However, it was passed in 
the interest of peace. 

While the South knew that some of these measures were 
unjust, yet to get back her slaves, for at this time 30,000 had 
been hidden from their owners, she was willing to adopt the 
compromise measures that grew out of this bill. Many South- 
ern statesmen protested against it, and it only postponed the 
war ten years. 

In 1852 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" appeared. This was such a 
misrepresentation of the institution of slavery in the South 

55 



that it brought just indignation to Southern people. It was so 
subtly written that it made the abolition sentiment stronger at 
the North, and really had much to do in bringing on the war, 
and much to do in keeping England, France and other Euro- 
pean countries from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. 
The South felt this injustice keenly. 

Then in 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Bill proposed by 
Stephen Douglas passed. This led to Squatter Sovereignty, an- 
other violation of the Constitution and an interference with 
our States' rights. There is no doubt that John Brown's Baid 
grew out of this bill. The jBrst gun fired in this raid may be 
said to have been the first gun of the War between the States. 

John Brown was "an insurrectionist, an invader of States, 
an encourager of arson, and a murderer" — and this is quoting 
entirely from Northern authority. I could never understand 
how God-fearing men from the pulpits in the North have said 
that next to the Son of God John Brown was the greatest of 
martyrs. It has taken all the grace of Christianity for the 
South to forgive and forget this. However, the Federal Gov- 
ernment quickly punished this offender, and also decided in 
favor of the South when the Dred Scott case came to trial. So 
we began to take hope that at last the South could fall back up- 
on her reserved rights and be protected. 

Another offense then came. The slave trade was being 
openly violated and no action was taken by the Federal Gov- 
ernment to prevent it. It had been decided by law that the 
slave trade should cease in 1808, and yet as late as 1857 it was 
known that 75 slave ships had sailed from Massachusetts 
ports, and between 1859 and '60, it was known that 85 slave 
ships left New York, sent out by merchants carrying 60,000 
slaves to Brazil. As late as 1857 the Chlotilde was sent to Mo- 
bile, Ala., with 175 slaves, and the following year the New York 
Yacht Club sent the Wanderer to Brunswick, Ga., with 750 
slaves, and the next year it returned with 600 slaves and sailed 
up the Satilla and Savannah rivers and sold this cargo in vio- 
lation of the law. An attempt was made by Georgia to prose- 
cute two Georgians who were accused of encouraging the 
transaction, but they could not be convicted for complicity in 
the scheme. If the Federal Government ever punished Massa- 
chusetts and New York for violating the law it is not so 
recorded. 

But the act which brought things to a crisis was the elec- 
tion of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, 

56 



without even a popular vote of the North, but by the vote of 
the fifteen States which had stood for these repeated violations 
of the Constitution and continued interferences with States' 
rights, and the States which took out the "Personal Liberty 
Bills," advocating a law higher than the Constitution so that 
they might still hide our slaves. By this time (1860), 50,000 
slaves had been hidden from us. Unfortunately, the Demo- 
cratic party split, having three candidates in the field — a warn- 
ing that we must hereafter heed — and allowed Lincoln to be 
elected on the small vote of 1,831,000. There was nothing for 
the South to do but secede. She saw nothing but continued 
violation of the Constitution by the North dominated by the 
policy of these fifteen States and their candidate. How could 
she be blamed for seceding? 

Did the Southern States secede with any thought of 
WAR? No, they simply wished to peacefully withdraw and 
form a government which would respect their rights as re- 
served by the Constitution. It would have been a stupid thing 
for seven States to think of fighting all of the other States in 
the Union. The North had the army; the North had the navy; 
the North had all of the arms. The South had no arms except 
the small number of guns that Secreary Floyd had asked for, 
fearing another John Brown might rise, and those Jefferson 
Davis, then Secretary of War, had asked for to quell the Indian 
uprisings. Even then the full quota of arms which rightly 
belonged to the South had never been asked for. 

Does it not seem in reason, if the South had had a thought 
of war at this time she would have demanded her full share of 
arms and ships? The South had no materials to manufacture 
munitions of war. That is, she did not know that she had sul- 
phur, saltpetre, nitre and other needful things lying undiscov- 
ered beneath her soil, but she knows it now; she then had few 
manufactories; she only had one Powder Mill, that at Augusta, 
Ga., she did not own a ship, yet her Southern men in command 
of ships (there were 43 captains and 62 commanders in all 
from the South), when the States seceded, surrendered their 
commissions to the U. S. Government and came home to cast 
their lot with their States. Had they dreamed of war, they 
could have brought their ships south as they had a right to do. 
She did not have a shipyard where a ship could even be re- 
paired. She had only 9,(X)0,000 people from which to draw an 
army, and 4,000,000 of these were her slaves, while the North 
had over 31,000,000 and the whole world from which to draw 

57 



recruits. Think of war? No, she never dreamed of it. Some 
few of her statesmen feared it, but when suggested, Robert 
Toombs of Georgia, said he would willingly drink every drop 
of blood which would be shed by war. 

The South only desired to take possession of the things 
which were rightfully hers. Texas demaded her forts and 
arsenal; so did Louisiana her custom house and fort; Missis- 
sippi, Alabama, Florida and Georgia their forts and arsenals; 
but when South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter, to the sur- 
prise of South Carolina, it was refused. Governor Pickens at 
once sent a request to President Buchanan to allow the fort to 
be surrendered peaceably. Assurances were given that this 
would be, and yet the Star of the West was sent with 200 men 
and arms to hold the fort. The first thing that the Confeder- 
ate government did was to send a committee of three to Wash- 
ington to ask the peaceable surrender of Fort Sumter. They 
waited there three months until President Lincoln had been in- 
augurated and then made the request. He refused to see the 
committee, but through Seward, and Seward through Judge 
Campbell, sent to them assurances that "faith with Fort Sum- 
ter would be kept." Now Lincoln and Seward both knew that 
when this message was sent, seven vessels filled with armed 
men had already sailed to garrison the fort. When time suf- 
ficient had elapsed for the vessels to land, then Lincoln wired 
Gov. Pickens that he had sent these men to Sumter peacefully 
if allowed to land, otherwise resistance would be made. For- 
tunately a storm prevented the vessels reaching the fort as 
soon as had been expected, so General Beauregard telegraphed 
for permission to demand the surrender of the fort. This per- 
mission was granted by the Confederate government. Anderson 
said he must wait for orders from headquarters, Beauregard 
answered that if the fort was not surrendered by a certain 
time it would be fired upon. It was not surrendered, so was 
fired upon. The firing of the first shot at Fort Sumter did not 
bring on the war, but the act which made the firing necessary 
declared war. The call of President Lincoln for 75,000 troops 
to coerce the South, without Congress' consent was a violation 
of the Constitution. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and 
Arkansas resented this and quickly seceded. Missouri, Ken- 
tucky and Maryland wished to secede, but were not allowed to 
vote on secession. This act of Lincoln calling for troops was in 
itself a declaration of war. 

58 



Was secession rebellion? The very fact that President 
Davis and the leaders of the South could not be brought to trial 
disproves this. Chief Justice Chase said, "If you bring these 
leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitu- 
tion secession is not rebellion." Wendell Phillips said, and he 
was no friend of the South, "Looking back upon the principles 
of '76 the South had a perfect right to secede." Horace Greely 
said so, Lincoln himself said so, and Daniel Webster had said 
so. 

I wonder how many present here realize that there have 
been eight distinct secessions in the United States and very 
many threatened ones. 

1. The thirteen colonies seceded from England and 
formed a Perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation 
in 1776. 

2. The thirteen States seceded from the Perpetual Union 
and formed a Republic of Sovereign States in 1787. 

3. Texas seceded from Mexico and became a Republic in 
1836. 

4. The Abolitionists, led by William Lloyd Garrison, se- 
ceded from the Constitution at Framingham, Mass., and pub- 
licly burned it, calling it a "league with hell and covenant with 
death," the assembled multitude loudly applauding. 

5. Eleven States seceded from the Union in 1861 and 
formed a Southern Confederacy. 

6. The North seceded from the Constitution in 1861 when 
she attempted to coerce the eleven States back into the Union. 

7. Under President McKinley in 1898 the United States 
forced Cuba to secede from Spain. 

8. Under Roosevelt in 1905 the United States forced Pan- 
ama to secede from Colombia. 

Why should all of these secessions be justifiable save the 
one by the South in 1861 ? 

Was the war fought to hold our slaves ? Ah ! how often 
have we of the South had this cast into our teeth and often by 
some of our own Southern people. Yes, it is full time this 
wrong should be righted. 

Had the vote been taken in 1860 there would have been 
more votes against the abolition of slavery in the North than in 
the South. There were 318,000 slaveholders or sons of slave- 
holders in the Northern army, men who enlisted from the Bor- 
der States, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, besides 
those from Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. 

59 



There were only 200,000 slaveholders in the Southern army. 
Only five men out of every one hundred owned slaves in the 
South. 

There were many men among the leaders of the Northern 
army who owned slaves themselves or were sons of slavehold- 
ers or had married women who owned slaves. Among these 
m^y be mentioned General Winfield Scott, Commodore Farra- 
gut. General George H. Thomas, General Grant; President Lin- 
coln's wife came from a slaveholding family, and Stephen 
Douglas's wife was a very large slaveholder, while many of the 
leaders on the Southern side did not own slaves. General Lee 
had freed his. General Stonewall Jackson never had owned 
one until husband and wife begged him to buy them to prevent 
separation. General Albert Sidney Johnston never owned a 
slave, and General William M. Browne, a member of President 
Davis's staff never owned a slave. No, the war was not fought 
to hold slaves, but a few selfish Southern people may have 
thought so. 

General Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish 
slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to 
the other side." The North had no thought of fighting to abol- 
ish slaves, then why should the South be troubled on that 
score? President Lincoln sent word to General Butler that the 
war was not to be fought with any idea of freeing the slaves. 
President Lincoln was only concerned about the extension of 
slavery in the new territory, and frankly confessed to Horace 
Greely that if the Union could be preserved with slavery he 
would not interfere with it. It was the preservation of the 
Union he so ardently desired. He had no love for the negro in 
his heart. Don Piatt, who stumped the State of Illinois for him 
in his presidential campaign in 1860, said in one of his speeches 
that Lincoln had no love for the negro, "Descended from the 
poor whites of the South he hated the negro and the negro 
hated him, and he was no more concerned for that wretched 
race than he was concerned for the horse he worked or the hog 
he killed." 

II. 

Was slavery a crime and was the slaveholder a criminal? 
How little the people living today know of the institution of 
slavery as it existed in the South before the war. I long for 
the eloquence of our silver-tongued orator, Benjamin H. Hill, 
that I might paint the picture as I remember it. 

60 



If the roll call were taken of the children in the South to- 
day they would in large numbers be found to be abolitionists, 
intense and fanatical, and in full sympathy with the Northern 
side. Why? Because from childhood they had been taught 
by teachers who believe this, and have been fed on such chil- 
dren's books as "The Elsie Books," Louisa Alcott's stories, and 
kindred ones, besides being allowed to see moving picture 
shows of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Sheridan's Ride, Contest between 
Merrimac and Monitor, and the like. Whom can you blame 
for this, parents, but yourselves? 

Slavery was no disgrace to the owner or the owned. From 
time immemorial all civilized nations have been slaveholders. 
White, brown and black have been slaves. 

Who was responsible for slavery in the United States? 
Spain and England. 

What colony first owned slaves? The Jamestown colony. 

Was there any colony or State of all the thirteen which did 
not own slaves? Not one. In 1776 there were 500,000 slaves in 
America and 300,000 were in the Northern colonies. 

What was the condition of the Africans when brought to 
this country? Savage to the last degree, climbing cocoanut 
trees to get food, without thought of clothes to cover their 
bodies, and sometimes cannibals, and all bowing down to fet- 
ishes — sticks and stones — as acts of worship. 

What laws became necessary when they reached this 
country? Very rigid and in the light of the present day civili- 
zation excessively cruel. A strong argument for the civilizing 
power of slavery would be to compare these colonial laws 
with the laws of 1860. 

How did the Cavaliers regard slavery? They were very 
thankful to have a part in such a wonderful missionary and 
educational enterprise. 

How did the Puritans regard slavery? They thanked God 
for the opportunity of bringing these benighted souls to a 
knowledge of Jesus Christ. 

How did the Quakers regard the institution of slavery? 
They were always opposed to the holding of any human being 
as property, although it is stated that William Penn did once 
own slaves. 

Do£s THE Bible condemn slavery? 

It certainly does not. God gave to Abraham the most ex- 
plicit directions what he should do with his slaves bought with 
his own money, and what he should do with the ones he owned 

61 



by right of capture. (Gen. xvii.) Then our Lord healed the 
centurion's servant and said not a word about it being a sin to 
hold him in bondage. (Matt, viii.) And Paul sent Onesimus, 
the runaway slave, back to his master with apologies, but said 
nothing to Philemon about freeing him, but rather offered him- 
self to pay his master for the time Onesimus had stolen from 
him. (Phil. i:18.) And Titus was the pastor of a slave church. 
Paul wrote him to exhort those slaves to be obedient to their 
masters, not to answer back again, and not to steal, but to 
adorn the doctrine of God their Savior in all things. (Titus ii : 
9,10.) See also Eph. vi : 5, 6, 7, 8. 

Did the slaveholder in the South take an interest in the re- 
ligious condition of the negro ? 

He certainly did. More negroes were brought to a knowl- 
edge of God and their Savior under this institution of slavery 
in the South than under any other missionary enterprise in the 
same length of time. Really more were Christianized in the 
246 years of slavery than in the more than thousand years be- 
fore. 

In 1861 there were, by actual statistics, in the seceding 
States 220,000 negro Baptists, 200,000 Methodists, 31,000 Pres- 
byterians, 7,000 Episcopalians, and 30,000 belonging to un- 
classified Christian churches. 

The negro race should give thanks daily that they and 
their children are not today where their ancestors were before 
they came into bondage. 

Was the negro happy under the institution of slavery? 
They were the happiest set of people on the face of the globe, — 
free from care or thought of food, clothes, home, or religious 
privileges. 

The slaveholder felt a personal responsibility in caring for 
his slaves physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually. By 
the way, we never called them slaves, they were our people, 
our negroes, part of our very homes. I do not remember a case 
of consumption, or I should say now tuberculosis, among the 
negroes in the South. I do not recall but one crazy negro in 
those days. Hospitals and asylums cannot now be built fast 
enough to accommodate them. 

I am not here to defend slavery. I would not have it back, 
if I could, but I do say I rejoice that my father was a slave- 
holder, and my grandfathers and great-grandfathers were 
slaveholders, and had a part in the greatest missionary and 
educational endeavors that the world has ever known. There 

62 



never have been such cooks, such nurses or mammies, such 
housemaids, such seamstresses, such spinners, such weavers, 
such washerwomen. There never have been such carpenters, 
blacksmiths, butlers, drivers, field hands, such men of all work 
as could be found on the old plantations. Aunt Nanny's cabin 
was a veritable kindergarten where the young negroes were 
trained to sew, to spin, to card, to weave, to wash and iron, and 
to nurse; where the boys were taught to shell peas, to shuck 
corn, to churn, to chop wood, to pick up chips, to feed pigs, to 
feed chickens, to hunt turkey, duck, guinea, goose and hen 
eggs and to make fires, and to sweep the yards. 

Did the negroes hate their owners, and resent bondage? I 
need only to call to mind what happened when John Brown 
tried to make them rise and murder their masters and their 
master's children. I need only call to mind what happened 
when their masters went to battle, leaving in absolute trust 
"Ole Miss" and the children to their protection. I need only 
call to mind what happened after they were free that made 
Thad Stevens' Exodus Order necessary in order to tear them 
from their old owners. I need only call to mind the many 
mammies who stayed to nurse "Ole Marster's" children to the 
third and fourth generation. 

Compare the race morally to what it was then. "Ole Mars- 
ter" never allowed his negroes to have liquor unless he gave it 
to them. Crimes now so common were never known then. 
While the negro under the present system of education may 
know more Latin and Greek, it does not better fit him for his 
life work. It is true the negro did not go to school under slav- 
ery, but he was allowed to be taught, if he so desired. I have 
in mind a young aunt who taught three negro women every 
night because they wanted to read their Bibles. I have in mind 
my mother on the plantation surrounded every Sunday after- 
noon teaching to the negro children the same verses of Scrip- 
ture, the same Sunday school lesson, the same hymns that she 
taught her own children. 

As in family life a child must be punished if disobedient, 
so in plantation life a negro had to be punished if disobe- 
dient. Even admitting that some overseers were cruel, will 
the most exaggerated cases of cruelty compare with the burn- 
ing of the witches at Salem or the awful conditions of the cap- 
tured Africans on the slave ships, or the fearful conditions in 
the sweat shops of Chicago and New York today? The slave 
was the property of the slaveholder and a selfish reason would 

63 



have protected him if there had been no higher motive. 

No, the slaveholder was no criminal and slavery under the 
old regime was no crime. In all the history of the world no 
peasantry was ever better cared for, more contented or hap- 
pier. These wrongs must be righted and the Southern slave- 
holder defended as soon as possible. 

III. 

Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lincoln. 

Another wrong that must be righted is this glorification 
of Abraham Lincoln which redounds to the villification of Jef- 
ferson Davis. Our children are having too much of it in their 
text-books, too much of it in the newspapers, too much of it 
from the pulpits. 

Had President Davis died in the cold, damp cell with man- 
acles upon him, and had President Lincoln lived, Davis would 
have been the saint and Lincoln the sinner. It is not fair or 
just because Lincoln was the martyr that attributes which he 
did not possess should be given to him and handed down as 
truthful history. 

I am perfectly willing to have President Lincoln receive 
the praise he justly deserves, for he was a remarkable man, 
and I would not detract one iota from what is his due. At the 
same time I am not willing to ascribe attributes to President 
Davis which he did not possess, for he was remarkable enough 
without them. Both men had their weaknesses and neither 
should be canonized. 

Lest I should be accused of partiality when their lives are 
placed in parallel lines, I shall only quote from the friends of 
each. Both had enemies, vindictive and prejudiced; both had 
friends, loyal and true. This contrast truthfully and faithfully 
drawn will throw much light upon unwritten history. If in- 
justice to either has been done, it has not come from any de- 
sire or intention on the part of the historian, for it is truth only 
that is sought. 

Jefferson Davis was bom in Christian County, Kentucky, 
June 3rd, 1808. 

Abraham Lincoln was bom in Hardin County, Kentucky, 
February 12, 1809. 

There was a difference of eight months in their ages; they 
were born about 100 miles apart in the same State — both men 
Kentuckians of Southern birth. 

64 



Jefferson Davis came from a home of culture, refinement, 
luxury and religious influence. 

Abraham Lincoln came from a home of poverty, no refine- 
ment, no culture and little religious influence. 

Jefferson Davis had every educational advantage in youth. 
His first teacher was a loving, devoted Christian mother. He 
was then sent to an academy, then to college, then to West 
Point. His ambition was to became a great military leader. 

Abraham Lincoln lost his mother when quite young. He 
attended school for a very short time. Thomas Lincoln's second 
wife was a very good woman and treated the lad kindly. He 
was sent from home at the age of nine, and then began the 
struggle for life. He did all kinds of hard work; he split rails, 
he worked on a ferry, he clerked in a store, and had no time 
for study except at night after a hard day's work. Often no 
light by which to study save the light from the fire. His ambi- 
tion made him struggle on to acquire an education under the 
most adverse circumstances. His desire was to become a great 
political leader, and if possible the President of the United 
States. 

Jefferson Davis in personal appearance was tall, erect, 
lean, with features very pronounced, and determination 
stamped on every lineament. He was always well groomed, 
perfectly at ease in his manners whether in the cabin of the 
lowly, the home of the wealthy, or the White House of the 
Confederacy. He always enjoyed social life. 

Abraham Lincoln was tall, with stooping shoulders, thin 
and bony, with prominent features, but with determination 
written upon every lineament. He was never well dressed, 
his clothes having the appearance of being thrown at him. He 
was always ill at ease, whether in the cabin of the lowly, the 
home of the wealthy, or the White House of the United States. 
He hated social life; if possible, avoided it. 

Jefferson Davis had little humor in his nature, and re- 
sented a practical joke. Life was always very serious to him. 
He was dignity personified, and his soldierly bearing forbade 
even his most intimate friends getting very close to him. 

Abraham Lincoln loved jokes, indulged in them very fre- 
quently, and often his jokes were none too refined. His friends 
felt very near to him and enjoyed thoroughly his humor. 

Jefferson Davis was very happy in his married life. His 
first wife was the daughter of President Zachary Taylor, his 
second wife was Miss Varina Howell, the daughter of a United 

65 



States officer. His home was in Mississippi on a large planta- 
tion, surrounded by every comfort to make his life a joy. Chil- 
dren came into the home-nest, and his children were obedient, 
talented and loving. Sorrow later came from the loss of two 
of his boys, but he knew the source of comfort and did not 
rebel. 

Abraham Lincoln's married life was not happy. He had 
three romances connected with his early days. One, Amy Rut- 
ledge, belonged to his own social circle. Had he married her 
possibly his whole life would have been changed, but unfor- 
tunately she died while attending school. His other loves were 
Mary Owens and Mary Todd. He really loved neither, but in 
turn addressed each, became engaged to both, but advised 
both not to marry him, as he did not belong to their social set. 
It is said that Mary Owens jilted him, which greatly mortified 
him, but Mary Todd agreed to marry him. The day, January 
1, 1842, was appointed, the bride and attendants were waiting 
at the church, but no bridegroom appeared. It is said that his 
most intimate friends were never able to account for Lincoln's 
behavior upon this occasion. Mary Todd forgave him, how- 
ever, and married him one year later. It was a most unfor- 
tunate marriage, for she was not suited to make him happy, 
and while children came into the home, there was no real joy, 
for that can only come from a perfectly congenial atmosphere. 
He, too, lost one of his sons while living at Springfield, 111., 
and he became very morose and melancholy, for Herndon and 
Lamon both said Lincoln had no Christian faith to sustain him. 

Jeff'erson Davis was a slaveholder, and his father before 
him owned slaves. He was a kind master and his negroes 
were devoted to him. Even after they were free, when their 
former master returned home from two years' confinement in 
prison, they climbed about his carriage, calling to him affec- 
tionately, "Howdy, Mars Jeff, howdy. We sho is glad to see 
you." Then falling back and wiping the tears from their eyes 
they were heard to say, "Lord, don't he look bad." 

The testimony of his body servant, who was with him 
when captured, if we did not have that of Judge Reagan and 
other of the cabinet members, would be sufficient to refute 
the awful falsehood of General Wilson's telegram, that he was 
disguised in a woman's dress when arrested. This faithful 
servant said, "When we heard the Yankees coming we were 
skeered to death, but old Boss he walked just as straight as if 
he was walking the streets of Richmond with Lee and Jack- 

66 



son. He was the bravest man I ever saw. I was sho the 
Yankees was going to hang him, but if he ever flinched nobody 
ever saw him. Folks may say what they please, but Mars JefF 
sho was brave." 

Abraham Lincoln belonged to the poor white class in the 
South, who hated the negroes and they hated him. He was no 
abolitionist, and this is from his own testimony. His wife came 
from a slaveholding family, but probably owned no slaves at 
the time of her marriage. 

Both men served in the Black Hawk War. Lieutenant 
Davis mustered into service Captain Abraham Lincoln of the 
militia. Neither distinguished himself in any way during this 
war. Davis later entered the Mexican War and won great 
renown. At Monterey he was wounded, at Buena Vista he 
was a hero, and later led the troops into Mexico City with great 
bravery. In his military life he was known as a fine disciplin- 
arian, and while his soldiers feared him and dared not disobey 
him, they thoroughly respected him. 

Jefferson Davis ran for the legislature and was defeated, 
afterwards was elected, became United States Senator, then a 
member of President Pierce's Cabinet, as Secretary of War. 
He successfully reorganized the army, and was the first to 
suggest the trans-continental railway. He then became United 
States Senator under President Buchanan, and made a very 
long speech on State Sovereignty. When he heard his State, 
Mississippi, had seceded, he returned to cast in his lot with her. 
He was made Major General of the army, just what he most 
desired. When the Provisional Congress of the Confederate 
States met at Montgomery, Ala., he was chosen President with- 
out opposition. He did not seek or desire this honor, but ever 
went where duty called him. 

Abraham Lincoln also ran for the legislature and was 
defeated, but afterwards elected. He became a member of 
Congress in 1846. Then in 1860 was a candidate for United 
States President on the Bepublican ticket upon an anti-South 
platform, and was elected. 

President Davis served one year as President of the Con- 
federacy, was re-elected for the second term of six years and 
did the best he could combating overwhelming odds. When 
General Lee surrendered, he was rapidly making his way to 
join the last division of the army under Kirby Smith in Texas, 
when he was captured at Irwinton, Ga., and taken prisoner to 
Fortress Monroe to await trial. A reward of $100,000 was 

67 



offered for his capture. He was put in chains and treated with 
great indignities. Is it to be wondered at that he felled to the 
floor the blacksmith who came in to rivet the chains? He 
remained in prison two years. The United States authorities 
did not heed the requests from Judge Reagan, of Texas, and 
General Howell Cobb, of Georgia, for an immediate trial, 
which they knew would exonerate him, or greater leniency in 
the treatment of him. When it was discovered that a trial 
would condemn the North, by a statement from Chief Justice 
Chase to this effect, he was released from prison under bond, 
and Horace Greeley said, "I will go on his bond that the North 
may seem to be magnanimous." He returned to his home at 
Beau voir. Miss., a gift from a devoted friend and admirer, Mrs. 
Sarah Dorsey. There he lived until his death, which occurred 
in New Orleans in 1889. He was buried in New Orleans, and 
his body later removed to Richmond, Va. 

As Bishop Gailor said, "For twenty years he bore the 
obloquy of treason at the hands of those who were afraid to 
try him in a court of justice. For twenty years he was dis- 
franchised and denied the rights of citizenship. Yet he never 
sued for pardon, nor ever asked a favor. Lonely and crushed, 
with a heart broken, his life was desolated in its prime. 
But through it all God gave him the courage of the finest man- 
hood, and the purest purpose, and he died, as he lived, a 
Christian, praying for the welfare and happiness of his peo- 
ple. Truly he was a man without a country, yet he had a 
country in the hearts of his loyal Southern people — and in that 
country he ruled an unconquered king." 

The soldiers, who had not agreed with him in many things 
during the war, realized later what he had borne for the South, 
and turned to him then in loving affection. At Macon, the last 
reunion that he was able to attend, some of the soldiers thrust 
into his hands an old tattered and torn battle flag. Taking it 
in both hands, he buried his face in its folds. Strong men 
sank to the ground and leaned on each other's shoulders, weep- 
ing like children. They felt then, as they feel now, that while 
the cause was not lost, the principles for which they contended 
being admitted Constitutional by all right-thinking men the 
world over, the life of their chief had been sacrificed for it, 
and their hearts were breaking. 

Abraham Lincoln was afraid to go to Washington, so said 
his friend Lamon, so intense was the feeling against him; this 
feeling he feared more from his enemies at the North than at 

68 



the South. Lamon, as a detective, accompanied the President, 
who insisted upon going in disguise. His friends felt this was 
a cowardly thing to do, and reproached him for It. He served 
four years, and was re-elected over McClellan for another 
term, then he was foully assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. 
His body was carried to Springfield, 111. President Davis's 
first exclamation upon hearing the news was, "This is the worst 
blow that could have befallen the South." 

IV. 

Political Differences. 

There was a very striking likeness in many ways between 
these two men, which has led some to falsely suggest some de- 
gree of kinship between them. 

Both believed in the constitutional rights of the States. 

Both believed in the right to hold slaves by the Constitu- 
tion. 

Both were opposed to social and political equality for the 
negro. 

Both believed it would be disastrous to free negroes 
among their former masters. 

Both believed only in educating the negro along industrial 
lines. 

Both believed in the preservation of the Union, if possible. 

Lincoln believed and urged the colonization of the negro. 
Davis believed in the gradual emancipation of the negro. He 
thought the South was the logical home of the black man, and 
that the Southern people better understood him and were most 
ready to make excuses for his shortcomings. He believed that 
in the South the negro could always find sympathy, protection, 
religious instruction, work and a home. 

It has always seemed to me that when birthdays are being 
celebrated in the South the negroes had far better celebrate 
Davis's birthday than Lincoln's. He was their truest friend. 
Besides, it was Henderson's Thirteenth Amendment after Lin- 
coln's death that freed them. Lincoln's Emancipation Procla- 
mation did not free all the negroes, and was only made to 
punish the seceding States. The negroes have been kept in 
such ignorance along these lines, and their false worship of 
Lincoln is pathetic. 

Did President Davis have any trouble with his Cabinet? 
He certainly did. Alexander Stephens, his Vice-President, 
frequently disagreed with him. Some of his cabinet resigned. 
Some accused him of being imperious and partial. George 

69 



Vest said, "Had Davis's Cabinet stood by him notwithstanding 
they did not agi-ee with him, the Confederacy would not have 
failed." Some of President Davis's generals felt that he 
favored pointedly West Point men over others better fitted to 
command. 

Did Lincoln have trouble with his Cabinet? He certainly 
did. Ben Wade and Henry W. Davis issued a manifesto 
against him. Sumner, Wade, Davis, and Chase were his 
"malicious foes." Lincoln was forced to appoint Chase to the 
offioe of Chief Justice in order to remove him from the Cab- 
inet, for he was said to be "the irritating fly in the Lincoln 
ointment." Stanton called Lincoln "a coward and a fool." 
Seward said he had "a cunning that amounted to genius." 
Richard Dana said, "The lack of respect for the President by 
his Cabinet cannot be concealed." He was called "the baboon 
at the other end of the avenue," and "the idiot of the White 
House." Had not Grant succeeded in gaining a victory at 
Vicksburg, a movement to appoint a Dictator in Lincoln's 
place would have gone into eff'ect. His Cabinet had lost con- 
fidence in his policy. 

Was Davis honest and true to his convictions? If by hon- 
esty is meant taking graft or accepting bribes, he certainly 
could never have been accused of either. If by honesty is meant 
true to any principle which he knew to be right, whether it was 
expedient or not, he most undoubtedly was honest, and true 
to his convictions. 

Was Abraham Lincoln honest and true to his convictions? 
If by being honest you mean taking graft and accepting bribes, 
he certainly was honest, and won the title of "Honest Abe." 
But if by being honest is meant true to the things he believed, 
then Lincoln was not. 

He wrote Alexander Stephens before he was inaugurated 
that the slaves would be as safe under his administration as 
they were under that of George Washington. Did he change 
his mind when expedient? He told a friend in Kentucky that if 
he would vote for him every fugitive slave should be returned. 
Was it expedient to return any? At Peoria, 111., in 1854 he 
said, "I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — 
not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any 
legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves." Did he? He 
said the slaveholder had a legal and a moral right to his slaves. 
Was he honest when he violated the Constitution by freeing 
some of them? 

70 



He believed at one time it would not be constitutional to 
coerce the States, and then later he believed it would. A friend 
asked why he changed his mind. He replied, "If I allow the 
South to secede, whence will come my revenue?" 

In 1848 and in 1860 Lincoln said the Southern States had a 
right to secede; in 1861 he said they would be traitors and 
rebels if they did secede. 

No, Lincoln's convictions of right or wrong changed when- 
ever expedient. 

Did President Davis ever violate the Constitution? If he 
did his worst enemies have never been able to discover it. 
Secession was not a violation of the United States Constitution. 
When a President of the United States offered to give him the 
highest office in militia military service, an honor he most 
desired, he refused because he said that was a gift from the 
State, not the government. 

Did Lincoln ever violate the Constitution? Sumner said 
when Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter, and called for 75,000 
men without the consent of Congress, it was the greatest 
breach ever made in the Constitution and would hereafter give 
any President the liberty to declare war whenever he wished 
without the consent of Congress. In his inaugural address 
Lincoln said he had no intention to interfere with the slaves, 
for the South had a legal right by the Constitution to hold 
them. Why then did he issue his Emancipation Proclamation 
to free the South's slaves? Did he not violate the Constitution 
when he sanctioned the formation of West Virginia, a new 
State taken from Virginia without Virginia's consent? Did 
he not violate the Constitution when he suspended the writ of 
habeas corpus, May 10, 1861, in the Merriman case? Yes, 
Lincoln violated the Constitution whenever he desired. 

Was Jefferson Davis humane? He certainly was. When 
the soldiers were returning victorious from the first Battle of 
Manassas, and President Davis went out to meet them, he said 
that he commended their humane treatment of those 10,000 
prisoners of war as much as he commended their valor, great 
as it was. When he was urged to retaliate for alleged cruelties 
to our prisoners at the North, his reply was, "The inhumanity 
of the enemy to our prisoners can be no justification for a dis- 
regard by us of the rules of civilized war and Christianity." 
The Richmond Examiner said that this humane policy of the 
President would be the ruin of the Confederacy. His heart 
went out in agony over the suffering of the Andersonville 

71 



prisoners, and his inabilty to help them because of the refusal 
to exchange prisoners, and to send medicines. 

Was Abraham Lincoln humane? When Alexander Ste- 
phens, a personal friend, went on to Washington to plead for 
a renewal of the cartel to exchange prisoners, owing to a con- 
gested condition at Andersonville beyond the power of the 
Confederate government to relieve, he put this request on the 
score of humanity and friendship, not as a political measure; 
the request was refused. When President Davis, Colonel Ould 
and General Howell Cobb pleaded for an exchange of prison- 
ers at Andersonville on the plea of mercy, as the stockade was 
overcrowded and the water conditions bad, was the request 
granted? When six of the prisoners were paroled in order to 
go to Washington to plead for exchange, was their request 
even given a fair hearing? When Colonel Ould begged that 
medicines, which had been made contraband of war, should 
be sent to their own surgeons to use only for their own men, 
was not that request denied? When Colonel Ould asked that 
a vessel be sent to take the sick and wounded home, because 
of the lack of room, lack of cooking vessels to prepare the 
returned that the vessel would be filled with well men to com- 
plete that number, and although this answer went in August it 
was December before the vessel was sent, and that after many, 
many had died. When General Cobb sent the prisoners to 
Florida the Federal officers refused to receive them, but they 
were left there anyway. Was Sheridan's treatment of the 
women and children in the valley of the Shenandoah, or Sher- 
man's treatment of them in Atlanta, or in his March through 
Georgia, or at the burning of Columbia, or Butler's treatment 
of the women in New Orleans humane? Yet Lincoln as Com- 
mander-in-Chief of the army, allowed it and never once re- 
proved it. No, Lincoln was not humane. Nevertheless, this 
quality has been given to him in full measure since his martyr- 
dom. 

Did Lincoln intend to free the slaves when war was de- 
clared? Certainly he did not. In his speech at Peoria, 111., he 
said: 

"Free them and keep them here as underlings? That 
would not better their condition. 

"Free them and make them socially and politically our 
equals? My own feelings will not admit this, and I know the 
mass of whites North and South will not agree to this. We 
cannot make them our equals. 

72 



"Free them and send them to Liberia would be my first 
impulse, but I know if they were landed there today they 
would perish in ten days. 

"If all earthly power were given to me I do not know what 
to do with slavery as it exists in the South today. 

"A system of gradual emancipation seems best, and we 
must not too quickly judge our brethren of the South for a 
seeming tardiness in this matter." 

Does this seem that he had the Emancipation Proclama- 
tion or anything like it in his mind at that time? 

Was Lincoln magnanimous? Yes, Lincoln was magnan- 
imous, for there is no doubt that Grant's magnanimity to Lee 
was Lincoln's thought, not Grant's. One who was present 
when Grant went to consult Lincoln about this testifies to this 
fact. 

Was Lincoln highly extolled by his friends Herndon and 
Lamon before his martyrdom? No, they saw many faults in 
their friend Lincoln which were quickly expunged from later 
editions of their books. The first copies of these books were 
rapidly destroyed. Rare copies of them are, however, still to 
be found. 

What were Lincoln's views about colonization? 

From the time of his election as President he was striving 
to find some means of colonizing the negroes. An experiment 
had been made of sending them to Liberia, but it was a failure, 
and he wished to try another colony, hoping that would be suc- 
cessful. He sent one colony to Cow Island under Koch as 
overseer, but he proved very cruel to the negroes and they beg- 
ged to return. He then asked for an appropriation of money 
from Congress to purchase land in Central America, but Cen- 
tral America refused to sell and said, "Do not send the negroes 
here." The North said, "Do not send the negroes here." It 
was then agreed that a Black Territory should be set apart 
for the segregation of the negroes in Texas, Mississippi and 
South Carolina — but Lincoln was unhappy, and in despair he 
asked Ben Butler's advice, saying, "If we turn 200,000 armed 
negroes in the South among their former owners, from whom 
we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. 
It cannot be done. The negroes must be gotten rid of." Ben 
Butler said, "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" 
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion, and asked Butler to 
consult Seward at once. Only a few days later John Wilkes 
Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators 

73 



wounded Seward. What would have been the result had 
Lincoln lived cannot be estimated. The poor negroes would 
possibly have been sent to that place of yellow fever and 
malarial dangers to perish from the face of the earth, for we 
had no Gorgas of Alabama to study our sanitary laws for them 
at that time. 

By the way, another wrong of history should be corrected 
just here. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln because 
of no love that he had in his heart for the South, but because 
Lincoln and Seward had failed to pardon a friend of his, and 
failing in this promise that friend was hanged. Vengeance was 
vowed and vengeance was taken. There was not a true man 
of the South who would have tolerated such a deed as 
Lincoln's assassination. 

What was Lincoln's Reconstruction Policy? 

Lincoln's idea was to restore all the seceding States to 
their rights, extracting a promise that they would not secede 
again, and that they would free their slaves, because he had 
promised that in his Proclamation, then punish President 
Davis and the leaders. He would never have stood for Thad 
Stevens's policy, and Thad Stevens and his crowd knew it and 
rejoiced at Lincoln's death. 

Now when Southern young men say "The South as well as 
the North is ready to admit that Lincoln is the greatest of all 
Americans," it is full time to call a halt. These young people 
have been taught to canonize Lincoln, and they must now be 
taught that Lincoln can never measure up to many of our great 
men of the South, especially to our Robert E. Lee, a man who 
in every department of life measured up to the highest stand- 
ard. Whether as son, husband, father, soldier, teacher, master, 
citizen, friend, scholar, or Christian gentleman, he presented 
the most rounded character found in all human history. Lord 
Wolseley said of him : "He was a being apart and superior to 
all others in every way; a man with whom none I ever knew, 
and very few of whom I ever read are worthy to be compared; 
a man who was cast in a grander mould and made of finer 
metal than all other men." 

Nor am I willing to place Lincoln ahead of our Jefferson 
Davis. Our Davis never stood for coarse jokes, never violated 
the Constitution, never stood for retaliation — Lincoln stood 
for all these. Nor was he even as great as many of the great 
men of the North. He cannot be compared to our Woodrow 
Wilson. Many times Lincoln had an opportunity to make 

74 



peace and he made war. Twice our Woodrow Wilson had an 
opportunity to plead for peace and he did it. Many times 
Lincoln had an opportunity to show loving kindness to 
humanity and many times he failed. Never has there been an 
opportunity for our President to show loving kindness to those 
in distress that he has failed. 

V. 

Another wrong that must be righted is that Barbara 
Frietchie MYTH. Our children are reciting that poem by 
Whittier and are being taught that our great and good Stone- 
wall Jackson was not only discourteous, but actually revenge- 
ful and cruel. We cannot allow this to longer remain 
unrighted. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from John G. 
Whittier written in 1892 in which he acknowledges that he was 
mistaken in the name of the place where the incident took 
place and the person mentioned in the poem who waved the 
flag. He says that a United States soldier returning from the 
war told him the incident, and said that it happened in Mary- 
land when Jackson's troops passed through. He supposed that 
it took place in Frederick, because Jackson passed through that 
city, so wrote to the postmaster there to inquire the name of 
the person connected with the flag waving. The postmaster 
replied that he had never heard of the incident, but that it 
sounded very much like Barbara Frietchie, for she was a very 
patriotic old woman who had lived there at that time. The 
name struck Whittier as suitable for a poem, so upon that 
authority only he wrote it. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from a nephew 
of Barbara Frietchie, written in 1874, saying that at the time 
Stonewall Jackson passed through Frederick, Md., he was 
attending to his aunt's business affairs, and he knows pos- 
itively that she was not able to leave her bed, much less to 
mount a casement to wave a flag. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from Dr. Zach- 
arias, her pastor, saying that the day before Stonewall Jackson 
passed through Frederick, he was administering, as to a dying 
woman, the last communion. He said he knew positively that 
Barbara Frietchie was not able to go to a window to wave a 
flag, even had Stonewall Jackson's men passed her home, 
which they did not. 

I have in my possession a chart giving Jackson's line of 

75 



march in Frederick and the location of Barbara Frietchie's 
home, which was quite off the line. And yet the women of 
Frederick, knowing these facts, have erected a monument in 
the streets of that city and lately unveiled it to this falsehood 
in history. 

The U. D. C. Daughters of Frederick protested. The 
Veterans of the U. C. V. in Frederick protested. The Daugh- 
ters and Veterans of Maryland protested, and the Baltimore 
Sun protested, but nothing could stop it. The testimony of an 
old woman over 75 years old, whose memory is known to be 
failing, has been taken, rather than more reliable testimony. 
She is a niece of Barbara Frietchie, and has been fed upon 
this story so long that she really believes it, when her own 
brother's testimony disproves it. There is nothing to do but to 
let it be branded in history as a monument to an untruth. The 
mayor of Frederick was asked why he allowed it to be erected, 
and he said, "Because it will bring many visitors to our city." 
Yes, it is a monument unique in history, but does it honor, as 
a monument should, the memory of any one? I know Whit- 
tier would have resented it, for while we didn't agree with 
him on the slavery question, he was a man of deep religious 
convictions and a man who abhorred a sham. If Barbara 
Frietchie was so patriotic she would not desire an honor that 
falsified facts. 

VI. 

Another wrong to be righted and one as much misunder- 
stood by some of our Southern men and women as by those of 
other sections. I refer to the misrepresentations* regarding 
Andersonville Prison, and the unfair trial given to Major 
Wirz, and the attempt to implicate President Davis in the 
atrocities, so-called, at Andersonville. 

It will be needless to rehearse all the story, especially here 
in Savannah, for it was a Savannah woman, Mrs. L. G. Young, 
who wrote the resolutions to introduce in the Georgia Conven- 
tion U. D. C. when it met in Macon, 1905, to erect a monument 
to exonerate the name of Wirz and to defend the President of 
the Confederacy. It was Miss Benning, of Columbus, Ga., who 
seconded it. It was a Savannah woman, Mrs. A. B. Hull, who 
was President of the Georgia Division when the monument 
was being erected, although it was unveiled under Miss Alice 
Baxter's administration. We can bear testimony to endless 
and vile vituperations hurled at us for daring to defend Major 

76 



Wirz and the Andersonville atrocities. But we knew that we 
were right and the truth of history would sustain us; and we 
knew the attacks came from ignorance of the facts in the case, 
so we tried to forgive and forget all that was said. We were 
sorry to stir up strife and bitterness, but right is might and 
must prevail. 

When Senator Blaine in the United States Senate Cham- 
ber January 10, 1876, cast reproach upon President Davis for 
the horrors at Andersonville, it was by good Providence that a 
member of that Senate was Benjamin H. Hill, the confidential 
adviser of President Davis, and he knew every step that had 
been taken in the whole affair, and why it was taken. Mr. Hill 
answered Mr. Blaine. 

That was a most remarkable speech. It refuted every 
accusation brought against Wirz or Davis, and silenced their 
defamers for a time at least. 

I wish I could give Senator Hill's speech in full, but I have 
not the time or memory to give it, and you have not the time 
to listen to it. Turning to Mr. Blaine, he said: "Mr. Blaine, 
you said Mr. Davis was the author knowingly, deliberately, 
guiltily, and wilfully of the gigantic crime and murder at 
Andersonville. By what authority do you make this state- 
ment? One hundred and sixty witnesses were introduced 
during the three months' trial of Captain Wirz, and not 
one mentioned the name of President Davis in connection with 
a single atrocity. It is true that two hours before Captain 
Wirz's execution, parties came to Wirz's confessor saying if 
Wirz would implicate President Davis his sentence would be 
commuted. What was Wirz's reply? 'President Davis had 
no connection with me as to what happened at Andersonville. 
Besides, I would not become a traitor even to save my life.' 

"You say, Mr. Blaine, that the food was insufficient and the 
prisoners were starved to death. The act of the Confederate 
Congress reads thus: 'The rations furnished prisoners of war 
shall be the same in quantity and quality as those furnished 
to enlisted men in the army of the Confederacy.' That was the 
law that Mr. Davis approved. 

"You say, Mr. Blaine, that Mr. Davis sent General Winder 
to locate a den of horrors. The official order reads thus : 'The 
location for the stockade shall be in a healthy locality, with 
plenty of pure water, with a running stream, and if possible 
with shade trees and near to grist and saw mills.' This doesn't 
sound like a den of horrors, does it?" 

77 



He then rehearsed the efforts of Vice-President Alexander 
Stephens, Colonel Robert Ould, General Howell Cobb, Captain 
Wirz, and others, who time and time again interceded for the 
exchange of prisoners on any terms and finally on no terms at 
all, if only they would receive them beyond the borders of the 
State, and, how every offer was rejected. He showed how med- 
icine, made contraband of war, was denied to be used for their 
own men. He showed how no act of the Confederate Govern- 
ment was responsible for any horrors that existed at Ander- 
sonville, but that all blame must rest wholly with the war policy 
of the Federal Government. When General Grant was urged 
to exchange, his answer was, "If we commence a system of 
exchange we will have to fight until the whole South is 
exterminated. If we hold those caught they are as dead men." 

VII. 

Mr. Hill continued : "You say, Mr. Blaine, that no prisoners 
in Northern prisons were ever maltreated. I do not care to 
unfold the chapters on the other side. I could produce thou- 
sands of witnesses from my own State of Georgia alone, to 
refute this statement." 

Yes, Mr. Hill could have told of the horros of Elmira, Rock 
Island, Fort Delaware, Camp Chase, and others. And he could 
have told how the health of Alexander Stephens, our Vice- 
President, was injured by confinement in Fort Warren, the 
dampness bringing on an attack of rheumatism from which 
he never recovered, and which left him a cripple for life. He 
could have told them how our Sidney Lanier was never a well 
man after that confinement in a Northern prison. He could 
have told of those 600 prisoners at Fort Delaware who were 
placed under the fire of their own men, and guarded by negro 
soldiers, and he could have told of horrors without end that 
were heaped upon our prisoners in a spirit of retaliation 
simply. 

Mr. Hill continued, "You say, Mr. Blaine, that President 
Davis starved and tortured 23,500 prisoners in Southern 
prisons. Who, Mr. Blaine, starved 26,000 prisoners in North- 
ern prisons? Mr. Stanton, your Secretary of War, gives these 
statistics, and I feel sure you will believe him, will you not? 
He says twelve per cent of our men died in your prisons and 
only nine per cent of your men died in ours. There were far 
more Northern men in our prisons than Southern men in your 
prisons. Why was this per cent of death greater at the North?" 

78 



Then turning to Mr. Blaine, Senator Hill said, "No, Mr. 
Blaine, I tell 3'^ou this reckless misrepresentation of the South 
must stop right here. I put you on notice that hereafter when 
you make an assertion against the South you must be prepared 
to substantiate full proof thereof." 

President Davis sent General Lee under a flag of truce 
to urge, in the name of humanity, that General Grant agree to 
an exchange of prisoners. The interview was not granted. 

This is General Lee's testimony as expressed in a letter 
to a Philadelphia friend, who wished his view of the Ander- 
sonville affair: 

"I offered General Grant to send into his lines all of the 
prisoners within my Department (Virginia and North Caro- 
lina), provided he would return man for man. When I notified 
the Confederate authorities of my proposition, I was told, if 
accepted they would gladly place at my disposal every man 
in our Southern prisons. I also made this offer to the Com- 
mittee of the United States Sanitary Commission — but my 
propositions were not accepted. — R. E. Lee." 

I wish I had time to tell you my conversation with Dr. 
Kerr, of Corsicana, Texas. He was one of our surgeons at 
Andersonville, and gave me some such valuable history con- 
cerning the conditions there. He says to his certain knowledge 
thirteen of the acts of cruelty brought against Captain Wirz, 
and accepted as truth, although absolute proofs were given to 
the contrary, took place when Captain Wirz was sick in bed, 
and some one else in charge of the prisoners. Yes, Wirz was 
a hero and a martyr. 

Dr. Kerr says that Wirz was called hard-hearted and 
cruel, but he has seen the tears streaming down his face when 
in the hospitals watching the sufferings of those men. Not a 
man ever died that he did not see that his grave was distinctly 
marked so that his mother could come and claim that body. 
Did any one at Northern prisons ever do that for our Southern 
boys' mothers? 

If the soldiers hated Wirz, as was said in the trial, why 
did they not kill him, for they had ample opportunity, as he 
never went armed. He did not even carry a pocket knife. He 
once laughingly said to Dr. Kerr that he had an old rusty 
pistol, but it would not shoot. 

I have in my library a copy of a set of resolutions which 
those six paroled prisoners drew up when they returned from 
Washington, exonerating the Confederate authorities of all 

79 



blame connected with the horrors of Andersonville prison life, 
and testifying to the fact that the insults received at Stanton's 
hands were far harder to bear than anything they ever had 
suffered at Andersonville. 

I have in my library a book written by one of the prisoners 
exonerating Captain Wirz and the Confederate authorities. I 
have in my scrap book a copy of a letter from some of the 
prisoners sent with a watch which they presented to Captain 
Wirz as a token of their appreciation of his kind treatment of 
them. Mrs. Perrin, his daughter, has many testimonials of this 
kind. 

There was never any trouble about lack of provisions at 
Andersonville, as has been so often stated. There was an 
abundant supply of the rations that the soldiers and prisoners 
needed, but the trouble came because of the over-crowded 
condition of the stockade. It was made for 10,000 and in four 
months 29,000 were sent. There were 8,000 sick in the hos- 
pitals at one time and no medicines. There were not enough 
vessels in which the food could be properly prepared and 
served, and the Confederate authorities were powerless, for 
they did not have vessels with which to supply this need, nor 
money with which to buy them. 

There were many bad men among the prisoners called 
"bounty jumpers," and they were killed by their own men, yet 
Captain Wirz was accused of their murder. Dr. Kerr said 
when Captain Wirz paroled those six prisoners to send them 
North to plead for exchange, he turned to him and said, "I 
wish I could parole the last one of them." At the surrender 
he went to Macon, relying on the honor of General Wilson's 
parole. Imagine his surprise when he was arrested. He was 
taken to trial, condemned upon suborned testimony and 
hanged November 6, 1865. That was the foulest blot in Amer- 
ican history, and Mrs. Surratt's death for complicity with John 
Wilkes Booth may be placed beside it. 

If any one questions the truth of these facts, they can be 
found verified in the volumes called the "War of the Rebel- 
lion," in the Congressional Library, in Washington, D. C, 
put there by the United States authorities. 

I have also a copy of a letter from Herman A. Braum, of 
Milwaukee, Wis., who was a prisoner at Andersonville. After 
paying a tribute to Captain Wirz and exonerating the Confed- 
erate authorities he says, "I believe that there is nothing so 
well calculated to strengthen the faith in popular government 

80 



as the example given by the Confederacy during the war, its 
justice, humanity, and power. On this rests the historic fame 
of Jefferson Davis." 

I wish I had the time to take up some other wrongs and try 
to right them. I had intended to say something of the Hamp- 
ton Roads Conference, the Sumner-Brooks caning, and the 
false history about the Monitor and Merrimac. But I have 
detained you too long already, and I must save these for 
another time. 

As I said before, whatever wrongs are righted, they must 
be righted in the proper spirit. 

I know perfectly well what the young people of today will 
say: "We are tired of hearing of these old issues, don't resur- 
rect them." We have listened to this too long from the young 
people, and we have allowed them thereby to grow up in 
ignorance of the truth regarding our history. We must not 
listen to them any longer. Justice to the living, memory of the 
dead, a desire that truth may prevail over error and falsehood 
makes me urgent to right these wrongs of history now. 

Our friends from the North do not object to the truth of his- 
tory provided we are fair and just. We may expect them to 
disagree with us at times, but that is perfectly natural for th^y 
have never heard of many of the things we claim. They, too, 
have been often wronged in our Southern history and we must 
be ready to help them to right their wrongs also. Whatever is 
done, let it be done in the spirit of truth and peace and love 
and good will. 

It is all right, as President Wilson said, to plan a Lincoln 
Highway, and it is all right to plan a Jefferson Davis Highway. 
We should honor the distinguished men of our land. Enough 
is not done along this line. Foreign countries put us to shame. 
But the Lincoln Highway will not obliterate the Mason and 
Dixon line, as the President suggests, for that is not a line of 
locality or mere boundary, but it is a line of heredity. Just 
as long as there is pure Puritan blood in the veins of some and 
pure Cavalier blood in the veins of others, there will be a 
difference in the thoughts and ways of the people. We cannot 
be alike if we would. This need not cause a difference that 
would lead to misunderstandings, however. God grant that 
never again in the history of our country shall jealousies, bick- 
erings, selfish contentions and political injustice drive us 
apart. Today we stand, and desire to stand a reunited people, 
all sections prosperous, happy, at peace and united. Yes, 

61 



united in energies, in common interests, in resources, in cour- 
age and in patriotism, dependent the one upon the other. 

The eyes of the world are on us. There is no doubt that 
our country is the greatest, the noblest, the mightiest of all the 
countries of the globe, and we must rejoice at it and keep it 
so. We should be thankful that we are under a leader who 
stands for peace and whom the whole world respects, a leader 
who has come to us "for such a time as this"; a leader who 
knows no section, but who, knowing the right, dares to main- 
tain it — a leader who has the love of the world in his heart, and 
would if he could have war to cease and peace and love and 
harmony prevail throughout the entire world. 



82 



Addr 



ess 



Delivered By 

Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford 

Athens, Ga. 

Historian General 

United Daughters of the 

Confederacy 



Historical Sins of Omission and 
Commission 



San Francisco, California 
Friday. Oct. 22. 1915 
Civic Auditorium Hall 



INDEX AND REFERENCES 

I. Supremacy Over France, pp. 85-87. 

Bradley's "Fight with France for North America." 
Woodrow Wilson's "History of the American People." 
Horace Walpole, William Makepeace Thackery, Samuel White, 
(English History.) 

H. Supremacy of America Over Spain, pp. 87-90. 

"The South in the Building of the Nation," Vol. IV. 
"History of the United States," Matthew Page Andrews. 
"Winning the Oregon Country," John T. Farris. 

III. War of 1812, pp. 90-92. 

The Divine Purpose of the War of 1812 — Frank Allaben. 

The Journal of American History. 

The South in the Building of a Nation. Vol. IV. 

IV. Romances of History, pp. 92-96. 

"Land of Used-to-Be," Howard Meriwether Lovett. 
"Revolutionary Reader," Sophie Lee Foster, Atlanta, Ga. 
"Georgia's Landmarks, Memorials and Legends," Lucian Knight. 
"The South in the Building of a Nation." Vol. IX. 
"On the Field of Honor," Annah Robinson Watson, Memphis, 

Tenn. 
Camp-Fire Stories — Marie Bankston, New Orleans, La. 

V. Sumner-Brooks Controversy, pp. 96-98. 

Congressional Records. 

Speech by Howell Cobb on Sumner-Brooks Controversy. 

The Washington Star, 1856. 

Smyth's American Literature. 

Richardson's American Literature. 

British Encyclopoedia. 

Origin of the Late War — George Lunt, Boston, Mass. 

VI. Hampton Roads Conference, pp. 98-100. 

Richmond Dispatch, 1856. 
Confederate Veteran, Nashville, Tenn. 
Historians: Alexander H. Stephens. 

Francis Thorpe. 

Peter Hamilton. 

Edward Pollard. 
Memoirs of Judge Reagan. 

VII. Monitor and Merrimag, pp. 100-103. 

Scharff's Confederate Navy. 
Historians : J. William Jones. 

Matthew Page Andrews. 

VIII. History of the Navy, pp. 103-106. 
Congressional Records, 
Semmes Service Afloat. 
Scharff^'s Confederate Navy. 

IX. Who Burned Columbia? pp. 106-107. 

Autobiography of Dr. Joseph LeConte. 
Sherman's Official Reports. 
Diary of Capt. Nichols. 
Sherman's Confession of 1875. 
"The New York Tribune." 

X. Reconstruction, pp. 107-111. 

Address of Walter Henry Cook on Reconstruction. 

Speech of Dan Voorhees on the " Plunder of Eleven States "— Congress- 

sional Records, 1872. 
The Chicago Chronicle. 
Charles Francis Adams, speeches made at Charleston and 

Chicago. 

XI. Textbooks, pp. 111-117. 

XII. Things That Make for Peace, pp. 117-119. 







Hi^orical Sins of Omission and Commission 

T THE Savannah Convention last year you will 
remember that the wrongs of history were stressed, 
and a hope expressed that the omissions in history 
would be taken care of in future years. 

Your historian realizes, however, that more textbooks of 
American history are being written today than ever before, 
and that it behooves us of the South to demand that the his- 
torical sins of omission shall be noted now, as well as the sins 
of commission. Especially is this important as it is earnestly 
hoped that the Chairman of the Textbook Committee, with 
sub-committees in every State, will examine all textbooks, not 
only of American history, but American literature, as well as 
the geographies and readers for primary and academic 
grades used in our Southern schools; and also inquire into 
texts used in the colleges in the North to which our Southern 
girls and boys are being sent. This is not with the expectation, 
or hope even, of having all of these textbooks changed, but 
simply to publicly note the injustices therein contained, as 
many teachers using these books are not themselves conscious 
that they are unjust, and some one must tell them about it. 

Supremacy over France. I have been a student of history 
and literature for many years, yet I must confess that it came 
to me as a real surprise, while in London a few years ago, to 
learn that to a Southern man is due the English supremacy 
over the French in North America today. 

Horace Walople said : "A volley fired at Great Meadows in 
1754 by a young American from the backwoods of Virginia set 
the whole world on fire. Not only England and France were 
affected by it, but every country in Europe was touched, and it 
settled forever the supremacy of the English over the French 
on America's soil." 

William Makepeace Thackeray even went further than 
this. He said: "It is strange that in a savage forest a young 
Virginia ofiicer should fire a shot and wake up a war which was 
to last sixty years and cost France all of her American col- 
onies, and sever all of ours from us, and indeed create a great 
Western Republic," and later added that "George Washing- 

85 



ton was the most conspicuous character in American history." 
Samuel White, another English writer, said : "In the wilds 
of America was raised a hero that eclipsed the glory of the 
Alexanders of Greece, the Caesars of Rome, and the Hampdens 
of Britain." 

Bradley, in his "Fight with France for North America," 
published by Constable & Co., London, gives a full account of 
this event in history and the results which followed the battle 
of Great Meadows. 

Governor Dinwiddle, of Virginia, in 1754 learned that the 
French were encroaching upon Virginia's territory along the 
Ohio River. He sent George Washington, of Fredericksburg, 
Va., to demand that the French withdraw their forces. They 
refused, and Washington was then sent to force them. He sur- 
prised them at Great Meadows, killed their leader, Jumonville, 
and captured all of his men. Upon Jumonville's body were 
found important papers which caused England and France to 
take definite action. 

This battle of Great Meadows was in reality only a skirm- 
ish, but see the results. Fort Duquesne fell, Niagara and Ti- 
conderoga were taken, the Acadians were driven from Nova 
Scotia, Lake George was cleared, Crown Point strengthened, 
Montcalm defeated at Quebec, Montreal fell, and the Peace of 
Paris signed in 1763. 

What did the English gain? Canada, Nova Scotia, Cape 
Breton Island, the islands in the St. Lawrence, the river and 
harbor of Mobile, all disputed territory between the Alleghan- 
ies and the Mississippi, and free navigation of the Mississippi 
River — and that volley was fired by our George Washington of 
Virginia. 

I certainly call this one of the historical sins of omission. 
Why? Because our American historians give this credit to an 
Englishman, Wolfe, at the Heights of Abraham. 

Parkman says, "The victory of Wolfe marks an epoch 
than which none is more fruitful of grand results." 

Knox says, "The victory of Wolfe was the most important 
event in modern history." 

Fiske says, "The victory of Wolfe marks the greatest turn- 
ing point as yet discovered in modern history." 

Jones, in the History of North America, certainly gives 
Washington no credit. Nor do Dinwiddle, Ridpath, Hale 
Barnes and others. 

86 



Even Green says, "With the triumph of Wolfe on the 
Heights of Abraham began the history of the United States." 

Of all American histories that I have examined, Woodrow 
Wilson in his "History of the American People," is the only 
one who gives the credit to George Washington, and Mr. Wil- 
son, too, must have gone to English sources. 

It was another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, who secured 
the Louisiana Purchase from the French. What was gained 
by that transaction? All the territory from the Gulf of Mexico 
on the south, and the Mississippi River on the east, to the Rocky 
Mountains on the West. The "Father of Waters" was left to 
flow unhindered to the sea. 

Just here is an opportunity to pay tribute where tribute is 
due. It was a Northern man, not a Southern man, Robert R. 
Livingston, of New York, with James Monroe, of Virginia, who 
manipulated this Louisiana Purchase with Talleyrand in 
France, and made it possible for Thomas Jefferson to complete 
it. 

Supremacy over Spain. Still another historical sin of omis- 
sion that must not be overlooked. How did we gain supremacy 
over Spain in North America if not through Southern states- 
men? The first permanent settlements were of course by the 
Spaniards; the second were by the French, and the third by 
the English. Therefore to Spain belongs the credit of the old- 
est city in the United States, St. Augustine in Florida, the oldest 
church in Pensacola, Florida, and the oldest house in the 
United States in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

The Spaniards in Florida became very troublesome to the 
Carolinas and to Georgia in Colonial days. Finally, in 1742, 
and that was much earlier than the Battle of Great Meadows, 
they determined to take possession of all of the land on the 
eastern shore from the boundary of Florida on the south to the 
St. Lawrence River on the north, from sea to sea, which in- 
cluded all land claimed by the thirteen colonies. Their plan 
was to conquer colony by colony, and this would not have been 
difficult, and the colonists knew it, for they were weak in mili- 
tary strength, and also weakened constantly by repeated at- 
tacks from the Indians. So with fifty-six vessels well-armed 
and well-provisioned, and 5,000 well-equipped men the Span- 
iards started out with a feeling of absolute victory. The "Baby 
Colony," Georgia, was nearest and weakest. The first attack 
was at Frederica on St. Simon's Island. 

87 



Oglethorpe had only two poorly armed and provisioned 
ships, but he had 682 brave Georgians and they taught the 
Spaniards a lesson that day at Bloody Marsh which they never 
forgot. These Georgians trailed in the dust the Spanish flag 
for the first time on America's soil, and never again did Spain 
trouble the colonies along the eastern shores. To James Ogle- 
thorpe, Noble Jones, and two brave Scotch Highlanders, Suth- 
erland and Mackay, is due the credit of this victory. Bloody 
Marsh is one of the decisive battles of modern history, for it 
unquestionably turned back the tide of Spanish invasion and 
gave the Anglo-Saxon race supremacy in North America. With 
what result? The United States of America — for, but for that 
victory there would possibly have been no colonies to declare 
their independence. Yet we find that battle but slightly noticed 
outside of the local history of the State. 

Then the Treaty at Coleraine in 1796, secured through 
Governor James Jackson of Georgia, all of the territory now 
included in Alabama and Mississippi, from Spanish rule. 
Think what Alabama and Mississippi mean to us ! 

The Mexican Cession by Nicholas Trist of Virginia in 1848, 
and the Gadsden Purchase by James Gadsden of South Caro- 
lina in 1853 included more land than was in the Louisiana Pur- 
chase. It extended from the Bockies to the Golden Gate and 
opened up all of the Pacific Coast. We who are here this even- 
ing truly rejoice that it is not a part of Mexico today. 

Then Oregon was added to the United States under a 
Southern President, James K. Polk. What was secured? A 
tract of land 300,000 square miles in extent, including Idaho, 
Oregon, Washington, parts of Montana and Wyoming, and the 
Puget Sound. Think of all that the Puget Sound has meant to 
us in Oriental trade! Here again we must do justice. It was 
Dr. Marcus Whitman, a Presbyterian missionary from one of 
the Northern States who traveled 3,500 miles to intercede with 
President Polk, and that, possibly, was the strongest influence 
in bringing about this purchase. 

Canada would undoubtedly have been annexed to the 
United States in 1812 had it not been for New England oppo- 
sition. 

You may ask, why were Southern men most interested in 
territorial expansion? Northern historians will tell you it was 
for slavery extension only, but the slave-holders of the South 
never dreamed of putting their slaves in deserts and ice-bound 
lands, free or not free. They knew they could not stand a cold 

88 



climate. The truth is they had caught the vision that material- 
ized in the Monroe Doctrine that unless Americans should se- 
cure America for Americans only, they would be like Europe is 
today made up of small monarchies and republics of all sorts 
of nationalities. 

Northern statesmen did not see any commercial advantage 
in taking care of such "wastes of land." Daniel Webster, the 
greatest of their statesmen, and we may add one of the greatest 
of all statesmen, thought it unwise. He said: "What do we 
want with this vast worthless area, this region of savages and 
wild beasts, of deserts, of whirling sands and whirlwinds of 
dust, of cactus and prairie dogs? To what use could we ever 
hope to put these great deserts, or those endless mountain 
ranges, impenetrable and covered to their very base with 
eternal snow? What can we ever do with the Western coast of 
8,000 miles, rockbound, cheerless, uninviting, and not a harbor 
on it? Mr. President, I will never vote one cent from the public 
treasury to place the Pacific one inch nearer to Boston than it 
now is." 

Was it not Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, to whom we are 
indebted for the first suggestion of the trans-continental rail- 
road? How could we have been here this evening but for that! 

Again, what does that cross mean that stands yonder in the 
Golden Gate Park, but that an English explorer came over as 
early as 1579 and laid first claim to this land. 

And did not John C. Calhoun, as Secretary of State under 
President Polk, plan to have the Republic of Texas taken from 
Spanish rule and placed under the protection of the United 
States? Think what Texas means to us today! 

Would not Florida, our "Land of Flowers," be possibly un- 
der Spanish rule today had not James Monroe, at the psycho- 
logical moment, arranged to have it bought by the United 
States? Nearly 59,000 square miles secured at 13 cents per acre 
because Ferdinand VII. was in financial straits. 

And was it not through Lewis and Clark, two Southern ex- 
plorers, that the Yellowstone was discovered and the Bible in- 
troduced to the Indians in the West? 

Was it not Andrew Johnson of North Carolina, who se- 
cured Alaska from Russia? However, justice here must be 
done, for it was a Northern man who urged it, William H. 
Seward. Alaska is now destined to be one of the greatest as- 
sets of the United States, yet many Northern statesmen op- 

69 



posed its purchase, and said, "It is a country fit only for a polar 
bear garden." 

These omissions must enter history, and we of tho. South 
are the ones to see to it. 

War of 1812. The history concerning the War of 1812 has 
always been most unjust to the South. Henry Clay, John G. 
Calhoun, R. M. Johnson, and other Southern men saw the ne- 
cessity for that war; Southern men planned it; Southern men 
urged it, and Southern men largely fought it. 

You may recall that at New Orleans in my "Thirteen Peri- 
ods of United States History" I called attention to this fact. I 
have recently read an article, "The Divine Purpose of the War 
of 1812," written by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of 
American History, Frank Allaben, which makes me feel that I 
must again stress this wrong to the South. While I cannot read 
the article, nor quote from it in full, I shall make copious ex- 
tracts from it. It is fine ! Read it, if you can, for yourselves. 

The writer said that the things we fought for, and the gains 
we stipulated are not even mentioned, much less included, in 
that Treaty of Ghent which ended this war, but in spite of that, 
they are written in golden fire across the face of Heaven. 

By that war, God taught England that we were free. She 
did not seem to know this before. She had hoped to confine us 
to that narrow strip of land on the eastern shore; she hoped 
some day she would resubjugate us, and not until our little 
navy beat her large navy at her own game in this War of 1812 
did she realize that our freedom was a fact, and a fact that we 
demanded must be respected. Boiling Hall of Georgia, a mem- 
ber of Congress in 1812, wrote to his friend Zach Lamar of 
Millegeville, Ga. : "England up to this time has captured and 
condemned 917 American vessels with their cargoes, and im- 
pressed over 5,000 American seamen. She should be compelled 
to grant what she has hitherto refused. It is the opposition of 
New England that keeps the British government from doing 
us justice." Southern statesmen you see wanted war. 

By that war, God preserved our Union by securing the con- 
trol of the Great Lakes and the Northwest, which England was 
holding for her Indian allies. We must be just here, and give 
credit for winning the control of Lake Erie where credit is due, 
not to a Southern man, but to Oliver Hazard Perry of Rhode 
Island, and the control of Lake Champlain not to a Southern 
man, but to Thomas Macdonough of Delaware. 

90 



By that war, God prevented the Union from being dis- 
solved, for you remember that the New England States at that 
Hartford Convention were planning to secede, and an agent 
was there arranging for an alliance with England again, and 
the formation of a Northern Confederacy was only prevented 
by the declaration of peace. 

By that war, God made our struggle the decisive war of 
history in vindicating the rights of international peace. Up to 
this time, it had been the custom, if two nations came to blows, 
all other nations must take sides and join one or the other. 

Heaven had already inspired our George Washington to 
see that our path of safety lay in steering clear of entangling 
alliances. He then planned our treaties of neutrality. He ap- 
pointed Edmund Randolph of Virginia, to draw up a Proclam- 
ation of Neutral Laws in 1793. This paper is one of the mile- 
stones in the progress of civilization. It is true that it was ridi- 
culed by foreign nations, and it was disregarded at home, but 
British statesmen have since declared that the principles there- 
in set forth "represented the high water mark of international 
law." This document was rewritten in the time of Madison, and 
enacted by Congress, and is today the law of the land, and in- 
deed the law of the civilized world. It is back of this law that 
our President is standing today, and if we will let him alone 
he can enforce that law and not bring a clash of arms as we 
were compelled to do in 1812. 

You remember that Washington declined to give aid to 
France when the French Revolution came on, and he was de- 
clared ungrateful because France had aided us in our Revolu- 
tion, not only by personal volunteer service but by loans of 
money. By the way, Benjamin Franklin in history gets the 
credit of negotiating this loan for us, but French history gives 
the credit to John Laurens of South Carolina, which is another 
omission in our history. Washington, however, was too wise 
to get a young Republic involved in foreign disputes, so when 
Louis XVI. was executed in 1793, or thereabout, he brought 
forth our treaty of neutrality. Guizot, the French historian 
says: "Washington did two of the greatest things which in 
politics it is permitted man to attempt. He maintained by 
peace the independence of the country which he had con- 
quered by war." 

England growled and winced, but bided her time. After- 
wards when England and France were locked in arms for 
world supremacy, and infamous Orders in Council came from 

91 



London, and perjQdous Decrees from Berlin and Milan, Eng- 
land and Napoleon said any nation remaining neutral at that 
time should forfeit her rights on the sea, and subject her ships 
and commerce to confiscation. 

Our flag then floated over every sea, and we were an ob- 
pect lesson to the world. France and England envied and 
feared us, and set their mighty powers to grind us between 
them. 

Mr. AUaben goes on to say, "Then came forth a ruddy little 
David (the United States) against these two Goliaths (England 
and France), and taking three little stones (Jefferson, Madison 
and Monroe) from the brook of Freedom, defended our rights, 
and established the principle that a nation could remain neu- 
tral and at peace." No such civilizing documents as these three 
men are responsible for, defining the rights of neutrals, can 
be found in the archives of any other nation on the face of the 
globe, and they show that we have the right to quarantine war 
just as we would any other pest and thus keep our country at 
peace. 

When The Hague treaties were signed a few years ago, 
(you will see this in the May number of the North American 
Review of that year), the Monroe Doctrine was then and there 
safeguarded, and that means non-interference with foreign 
politics on our part, and non-interference on this hemisphere 
with our affairs on the part of foreign nations. 

Yes, the history of the War of 1812 must be rewritten, and 
full justice given to us of the South. 

Romances of History. Other omissions, but of far less 
historical importance, should also be noticed. I refer to the 
romances of Southern history, for romances have always had 
a powerful effect upon the youthful hearts and minds of our 
land. 

One would suppose from reading history as written today 
that Paul Revere was the only hero of Revolutionary days. It 
is true, he did ride a fine horse twenty miles over a fine road, 
in fine weather, not to warn the Americans of the British 
approach, (for they knew that already) but simply to tell 
whether they would come by sea or land. I have heard he was 
paid to do this, and the receipt for the money is in one of the 
museums in Boston. 

How far more heroic was the ride of John Jouett of Vir- 
ginia, who when he learned that Tarleton's men were plan- 
ning an attack upon the Virginia Assembly at Charlottesville, 

92 



rode forty miles between midnight and daybreak to carry the 
news. With what result? Monticello would be in ashes today, 
and we might have had no Patrick Henry to be the "Father of 
State Rights," and no Thomas Jefferson to be the founder of 
the University of Virginia, or to plan the Louisiana Purchase, 
and probably no James Madison to write the United States 
Constitution. 

Nor is Paul Revere's ride as heroic as that of Edward Lacy 
of South Carolina, who when he learned that Ferguson's men 
were planning an attack on King's Mountain, rode thirty miles 
after midnight to warn Shelby, Sevier and Campbell. With 
what results? King's Mountain was an American victory, not 
an English, and that was said to have been the turning point 
of the American Revolution. 

Nor can it compare with the ride of Sam Dale of Missis- 
sippi. The Secretary of War sent to the Governor of Georgia 
at Milledgeville a dispatch to be delivered at once to General 
Andrew Jackson at New Orleans. Dale offered to deliver it. 
He mounted Paddy, a little Georgia pony, and rode 500 miles 
in eight days to New Orleans. The great battle was then rag- 
ing and he was not able to see General Jackson until after 
midnight. "The answer must be returned tomorrow," he said. 
"I will take it," replied Dale. The General ordered relays of 
horses for his use but Dale refused, saying, "I will ride my 
Georgia pony, Paddy." And he did ride the 500 miles in eight 
days, but was so nearly frozen when he reached Milledgeville 
that he had to be literally lifted from his pony. That is what 
I call heroism ! 

Nor can Revere's ride compare with the ride of Ruth 
Sevier, the daughter of "Bonny Kate" Sherrill, who when she 
learned from an Indian playmate that the Indians and Tories 
were planning an attack upon the Wautauga Settlement, 
mounted a one-eyed, sore-back horse, and with only a rope for 
a bridle, rode miles through dark forests, waded deep creeks, 
and passed British spies, and thus saved Tennessee in her hour 
of danger. 

Nor is Paul Revere's ride equal in heroism to that of Agnes 
Hobson, who carried important dispatches from Governor 
Heard of Georgia to General Nathaniel Greene in South Caro- 
lina. Hiding these papers in her hair, and disguising herself 
as an old country woman, she mounted Silverheels, the Gov- 
ernor's horse, and for three days, spending the nights at farm 
houses in the enemy's territory, she actually took her life in 

93 



her hands for love of her country, and safely delivered the 
dispatches to our American commander. Then what about 
Emily Geiger of South Carolina ? When they sent for a woman 
to search her she read the dispatches, chewed up the papers 
and swallowed them. 

To read history as it is written today one would think 
that the freckle-face Molly Pitcher was the only woman who 
ever performed any heroic deed in time of war. She was 
heroic and was made a sergeant in the U. S. Army, an unusual 
honor for a woman. But did we not have a Captain Sally 
Tompkins in our War Between the States, and yet nothing is 
told about her? She maintained a hospital in Virginia at her 
own expense and cared for over 1300 Confederate soldiers. 

Except in local history we do not hear of our red-headed, 
cross-eyed Nancy Hart of Georgia. She not only poured a 
ladle of boiling lye soap into the eyes of a peeping Tory, but she 
held six at bay with one of their own guns (they did not know 
where she was looking) until her husband and sons had been 
called from the field. The bones of these six Tories were 
found a few years ago near her home in Elbert county, and 
yet it is recorded in history that she was a myth. Four of her 
relatives are members of our D. A. R. Chapter. 

Why not tell of Kate Barry and Kitty Carleton and their 
faith in prayer, and of many others truly as heroic. 

Lovett's Land of Used-to-Be would make a charming 
reader for our Southern schools. Too little is known of our 
Indian legends, for the story of our Nacoochee and her lover 
would be as thrilling as any Hiawatha and his old Nakomis, 
if only a Longfellow would write in poetic strains about them. 
Nowhere are Indian names and legends as wonderfully 
entrancing as in the land of the Cherokees, the Creeks, the 
Seminoles, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws and the Catawbas. 
Mrs. Foster, of the D. A. R., has a fine Revolutionary Reader 
that should be in our Southern schools. Lucian Knight, the 
State Historian of Georgia, has done so much to place these 
romances of history ready for our use, and Dr. B. F. Riley's 
Romances of Alabama gives a great deal of Indian history. 

Then the "Camp Fire Stories," by Marie Bankston, of New 
Orleans, and "On the Field of Honor," by Annah Robinson 
Watson, of Memphis, Tenn., give the touch to Confederate 
days. Where in all history can be found braver deeds than 
were performed by our Confederate heroes? Every man and 
woman in those days did heroic deeds. 

94 



Our faithful slaves were heroic, too. Why not tell of 
Mammy Kate, who carried in her clothes basket her young 
master from his prison cell, and of Daddy Cyrus, who placed 
his "old Marster's" best wine before the Tories while he slip- 
ped out to cut the ropes which bound his master ready for the 
gallows ? 

Colonial Dames and D. A. R. I must pause here to com- 
mend the work that is being done and has been done by the 
Colonial Dames and Daughters of the Revolution. They have 
unearthed more Southern history than can be estimated, by 
delving into old letters, court records, and family wills and 
deeds, searching for ancestral connections. I never hear 
of their marking historic spots that I do not feel a spirit of 
thanksgiving for these noble organizations. Historical tradi- 
tion and historical memories, if noble, are worthy to be com- 
memorated. 

While it is true they are dealing with past history, they 
are not sitting by any means with folded hands weeping over 
their dead ancestors, but are fully alive and alert and like the 
Federation of Women's Clubs and Daughters of the Confed- 
eracy are looking after the education of our needy sons and 
daughters of the South. 

But to return to the omissions. I have never seen the 
justice in making so much of the Boston Tea Party where men 
at night disguised as Indians threw the chests of tea overboard, 
and little outside of local history said of the 257 chests of tea 
thrown overboard at Charleston, S. C, by men without dis- 
guises in broad daylight. And this happened at other places 
too, in the South. Why has not that Edenton Tea Party in 
North Carolina entered history? Fifty-one women met at 
Mrs. Elizabeth King's home and organized the "Daughters of 
Liberty," the first patriotic organization for women in the 
world, and resolved to drink no tea nor wear clothes that came 
from England until the obnoxious tax on tea was withdrawn. 

Where except in local history is found the notice of the 
"Peggy Stewart," whose owner, Anthony Stewart, burned the 
vessel with its entire cargo in the presence of his daughter, 
Peggy, for whom the vessel was named, because some of the 
obnoxious tea was aboard? This took place at Annapolis, 
Maryland. 

Where, too, do we find the "Diligence" and "Viper," bear- 
ing the hated stamps, were not allowed to land, and what 
Governor was buried in effigy because he planned to store in 

95 



his house the hated stamps? Had these things transpired in 
New England every line of history would have been well pre- 
sented long ago. And New England is right to keep her his- 
tory straight. Too long have we allowed these romances of 
history to be overlooked and omitted. We must not allow 
it longer. 

Sins of Commission. Let us turn now to some of the his- 
torical sins of commission, some wrongs that still need to be 
righted. 

I did not have time in Savannah to speak of the wrongs 
concerning the Sumner-Brooks difficulty, the Hampton Roads 
Conference, and the truth concerning the Merrimac and Mon- 
itor, so we will take these first. 

Sumner-Brooks Controversy. Now what about that Sum- 
ner-Brooks controversy? "In the Senate Chamber May, 1856, 
Charles Sumner of Massachusetts for six days heaped abuse 
upon abuse upon Andrew Pickens of South Carolina about the 
slavery question. 

Preston Brooks, a representative from the same State, a 
relative of Judge Butler, heard of this attack and waited until 
the Senate adjourned to call Mr. Sumner to account for his 
statements. Not finding him, he returned to the Senate Cham- 
ber, where he found him in conversation with some lady 
friends. Taking his seat in full view of Mr. Sumner, he waited 
until the ladies retired, then he deliberately rose and 
approaching the Senator said: "I have read your speech and 
I have come to the conclusion that you were guilty of a gross 
libel upon my State and have wantonly insulted my absent 
gray-haired relative. Judge Butler, and I feel myself under 
obligation to inflict upon you a punishment for this libel and 
insult." (This does not look like "a sly and cowardly attack 
from the back," as has been represented in history.) 

"Sumner attempting to rise. Brooks struck him on the 
head with his gutta percha cane, and continued to strike until 
the cane was broken by the blows. Sumner trying to dodge 
the blows fell to the floor, then Brooks discontinued to strike. 
When Sumner's friends rallied around him, Brooks withdrew, 
but did not leave the Senate Chamber until Sumner had been 
removed to an anteroom." 

This is the story as it appeared in The Washington Star 
the next day. 

Let us see how it has come down to us through history 
and literature. Smyth in his American Literature says, 

96 



"Brooks beat Sumner over his head with a bludgeon." The 
Encyclopedia Brittanica says, "Brooks dealt almost death 
blows from which Sumner never fully recovered." Lyman 
Abbott referred to it as "a brutal assault, dastardly and cow- 
ardly. For an armed man to attack an unarmed man in my 
opinion is contrary to any code of morality." 

Brooks was not armed except with a cane. Sumner was 
his superior in weight and strength. Did the provocation jus- 
tify the chastisement? 

Lewis Cass, of Massachusetts, the "Nestor of the Senate," 
declared that Sumner's speech was, "the most un-American 
and unpatriotic speech that ever grated on the ears of any 
members of that high body." Dargan, the historian, says, 
"Sumner's speech was full of the vilest vituperation." Brooks 
said, "I would have forfeited my own self respect, and the good 
opinion of my countrymen had I failed to resent his insults." 

Rhodes, the historian, says : "Brooks' conduct in the House 
of Representatives for three years had been that of a gentle- 
man. He was courteous, accomplished, warm hearted, hot- 
blooded, dear as a friend, but fearful as an enemy." 

There is no doubt that Sumner's political friends used this 
attack to further his advancement. Richardson in his Amer- 
ican Literature says, "This assault of Brooks made Sumner 
more prominent in the anti-slavery contest." George Lunt, a 
Massachusetts Senator, said: "The unlucky blow, afterwards 
inflicted by Mr. Brooks of South Carolina upon Mr. Sumner in 
the Senate Chamber, gave a prominence which there is no 
reason to suppose that he would otherwise have acquired. It 
elicited sympathy enough to receive an indulgence to his 
extreme views from persons to whom these views had hitherto 
been most repulsive. Except for that blow there is every 
ground for believing that Mr. Sumner's official career would 
have ended with the first senatorial term." A Harvard pro- 
fessor said, "Mr. Sumner's vituperation was intolerable." 

A resolution was offered in the House to expel Mr. Brooks 
for this attack. Howell Cobb, of Georgia, defended him on 
the ground that the attack was not made while the Senate was 
in session, and that the Constitution gave authority to deal 
with members only under those circumstances, and that being 
a member of Congress did not throw an egis of protection 
about any member out of Congressional hours. 

Messrs. Keitt and Edmondson were threatened with expul- 
sion also because they knew that Mr. Brooks was to make this 

97 



attack and did not warn Mr. Sumner of it. Mr. Cobb argued 
that it was not incumbent upon these gentlemen to betray a 
breach of confidence. 

If I remember correctly, Mr. Brooks was allowed to make 
a speech in his own defense, then taking up his hat he walked 
out of the House never to return unless recalled. He was later 
recalled. 

Hampton Roads Conference. Let us look into that Hamp- 
ton Roads Conference. Mexico was giving trouble in 1865, 
and Francis P. Blair, Sr., conceived the idea that if peace could 
be declared between the North and the South, and both armies 
marched against Mexico the two sections could thus be sooner 
brought together by having a common interest. At his sug- 
gestion President Davis and his Cabinet appointed three Com- 
missioners, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, R. L. M. Hunter 
of Virginia, and John Campbell of Alabama, to meet with 
President Lincoln and Mr. Seward to discuss terms of peace. 
President Lincoln would not consent for the Commissioners 
sent by the Confederate government to come to Washington 
City, for that would be an acknowledgement of the Confed- 
eracy. Therefore it was agreed that they should meet at 
Hampton Roads, February 3rd, 1865. President Lincoln and 
Mr. Seward came on the "River Queen" to meet the delegation 
from the Confederate States. The Commissioners were given 
no authority to accept terms of unconditional surrender, they 
demanded a recognition of the Confederate States. Lincoln's 
only terms were unconditional surrender. There was no dis- 
cussion about slaves and payment for them, nor about Union, 
nor that other things would be granted. Mr. Stephens said in 
a letter to his friend, Stephen W. Blount, of Texas : "How can 
any sane person be expected to believe that any such propo- 
sition was made by President Lincoln to the Confederate Com- 
missioners, or was submitted to the Confederate government 
and rejected by either?" 

The Conference was informal, no official reports were 
made of it. It was short and had no practical results. In The 
Richmond Dispatch dated February 8th, 1865, is this item of 
news: "President Davis yesterday submitted to Congress the 
report of the peace Commissioners. The report is brief. Lin- 
coln off'ered no terms that could be listened to for a moment, in 
fact nothing short of unconditional submission." 

It has been stated by many eminent men of the South that 
Mr. Stephens told them personally that Mr. Lincoln said, 

98 



"Write Union and I will make any other terms you suggest," 
and also told them that "he would pay $400,000,000 for the 
slaves of the South." I have in my library a copy of Judge 
Reagan's testimony refuting this. He was the last surviving 
member of the Confederate Cabinet, and was present when the 
Commissioners made their report. 

I have a copy of the testimony of Senator Vest of Missouri, 
denying that any such report was made by the Commissioners. 
He was the last surviving member of the Confederate Senate. 
I have copies of Alexander Stephens' denial over and over 
again, to Governor Garland of Arkansas, to Senator Orr of 
South Carolina, to Representative Sexton of Texas, and others, 
that any such offer was made to the Commissioners. The mat- 
ter was agitated evidently by enemies of President Davis to 
arouse prejudice against him. Lincoln did propose an amend- 
ment to pay for slaves, but it was for the slaves in the border 
States. It never reached Congress because of Lincoln's death. 

The misunderstanding in regard to Mr. Stephens must 
have arisen from repeating some private interview with Presi- 
dent Lincoln later. It certainly was not at Hampton Roads 
Conference. 

Francis Thorpe, the historian, says that President Lincoln 
did not intend to go to that Conference until General Grant 
telegraphed him that the intentions of the Confederate Com- 
missioners were good and their desires sincere to restore peace 
and Union. He had fully instructed Seward what to say : "Do 
not assume to definitely consummate anything." 

"Make known three things as indispensable : 

1st. The complete restoration of National authority. 

2nd. No receding from the slavery question as assumed 
in my late annual message, and in preceding documents. 

3rd. No cessation of hostilities short of end of war and 
disbanding of hostile troops." 

The Confederate Commissioners would not agree to these 
terms. Lincoln reiterated that it was an impossibility for the 
United States to enter into any agreement with parties in arms 
against it. Mr. Stephens reminded the President of the doc- 
trine of State Sovereignty and the right of the States to secede. 
The President advised him to go back to Georgia and ratify the 
proposed Thirteenth Amendment. 

Pollard said: "It was merely a device hit upon by Gov- 
ernor Vance and President Davis to reawaken the military 
passions of the South, in order that a desire to continue the 

99 



war would be strengthened, and that President Davis really 
wished the demands for peace to be rejected." And Pollard 
goes on to say that when President Davis heard the report 
from the Commissioners he burst into threats against Lincoln, 
saying that the Confederacy in less than twelve months would 
compel the Yankees to sue for peace on Confederate terms. 
Those who knew President Davis know the falsity of such 
statements. No, we have too long and too patiently borne the 
misrepresentations regarding this matter, and must demand 
that they be righted. 

What about the Merrimac and the Monitor? History is all 
wrong about this matter. The idea of an ironclad vessel orig- 
inated in the brain of John L. Porter of Portsmouth, Va., in 
1846. There had been ironclad floating batteries before this 
time, but no self-propelling ironclad vessel. In 1861 Secretary 
Mallory of the Confederate Navy ordered a board of engineers. 
Porter, Williamson and Brooke, to decide upon the feasibility 
of building a vessel after Porter's plans. Friends of Lieutenant 
Brooke claimed that his plans were the ones accepted, and Pol- 
lard's history has also been misleading along this line. (See 
Scharff's Confederate Navy, p. 151.) 

The Merrimac was converted into an ironclad at Engineer 
Williamson's suggestion according to John L. Porter's plans. 
She had been raised by the State of Virginia because of ob- 
structed navigation. When she was ready to be floated the 
name was changed to Virginia by the Secretary of Navy, but to 
avoid confusion I shall continue to speak of her as the Merri- 
mac. 

Captain Buchanan was placed in command. On the 8th of 
March she steamed from the Navy Yard to attack the vessels 
in Hampton Roads. She looked like a sunken house with the 
roof above the tide. From Hampton Roads she steamed to 
Newport News. The Congress first fired upon her, then the 
Cumberland. She made directly for the Cumberland, striking 
her a deadly blow with her ram, opening a large hole in her 
side, then demanded the surrender of that ship. A small leak 
was in the Merrimac, but she speedily turned upon the Con- 
gress and the shells from the ironclad soon disabled her. After 
an hour's fire from the Merrimac, she too was forced to sur- 
render. The Raleigh, the Henry, the Jamestown and the 
Teaser were the Merrimac's wooden helpers. The flag of truce 
was raised and hostilities ceased. 

100 



While under the flag of truce and both sides were looking 
after the wounded, the Federals on shore fired and wounded 
Captain Buchanan and Lieutenant Minor. Lieutenant Catesby 
Jones then assumed command of the Merrimac, and Captain 
Buchanan instructed him to set fire to the Congress. Darkness 
coming on, the Merrimac anchored at Sewall's Point for the 
night. 

When the news reached the North consternation seized the 
minds of the people, and they felt the crisis of the war was at 
hand. "The enemy," they said, "have a vessel impervious to 
shot and which can go where she pleases." 

Lincoln called a Cabinet meeting. Mr. Stanton said : "The 
Merrimac will change the whole course of the war. She will 
destroy every vessel of our navy. It is not unlikely that a can- 
non baU from one of her guns will fall upon the White House 
before we leave this room." Lincoln did not share Stanton's 
extravagant apprehensions, but there is no doubt it was a night 
of anxiety, of terror, of bewilderment, seldom witnessed be- 
fore. 

On that night there steamed into Hampton Roads a curi- 
ous looking vessel called the "Yankee Cheese Box." It was the 
Monitor from New York. 

On the next day, March 9th, the Commander of the Merri- 
mac decided to complete the destruction of the Minnesotx, 
when suddenly the Merrimac grounded and remained so for 
some time. The Monitor was advancing upon her when the 
Merrimac opened fire but with no effect. Straight on she came, 
throwing heavy missies against the Merrimac's sides as she 
circled around her. For hours the vessels, almost touching 
each other, continued to pour broadside after broadside into 
each other without effect. The Monitor fired shot and shell, 
but the Merrimac had only shell. Both vessels seemed invulner- 
able. There is no doubt that the Monitor fought bravely. The 
Merrimac ran aground again, but soon floated and tried to run 
down the Monitor. Once her bow was pressing against the 
Monitor's side, but she careened, and by a caprice of fortune, 
as it seemed, the engines of the Merrimac instead of pressing 
on were reversed and the two vessels separated. A shell from 
the Merrimac struck the pilot house of the Monitor, and dis- 
abled her commander. Lieutenant John L. Worden, then the 
Monitor withdrew to shoal water and the Merrimac could not 
follow and waited. But the Monitor never again offered or ac- 
cepted a challenge to fight the Merrimac, and two or three 

101 



times later the challenge was sent. The Merrimac waited for 
about an hour, and as no Monitor came, she steamed to the 
Navy Yard for fear later she could not cross the bar. She with- 
drew amid the applause of thousands as testified by those who 
witnessed the triumph. 

The Captain of the Minnesota, G. J. Van Brunt, in his of- 
ficial report says : "The Monitor steamed out of range of shot 
towards Old Point Comfort, and the Virginia, having waited in 
vain for three-quarters of an hour for her antagonist to retui c., 
retired to Norfolk." 

Captain E. V. White, an engineer on board the Merrimac 
said : "We wished to repeat the battle, but the Monitor with- 
drew from the field and refused to fight again, and I say this 
in positive contradiction of those statements made in the school 
histories of today." Then he further stated that while attend- 
ing a Cyclorama in New York, the manager made statements 
that were untrue, and he interrupted him, saying that he was 
an officer on board the Merrimac and knew that his statements 
were untrue. At the close of the entertainment the manager 
asked for a private interview with him and acknowledged that 
his statements were false, but said to make his show popular 
at the North he was forced to say what he did. 

It was April before the Merrimac had completed some al- 
terations, then she steamed down to Hampton Roads under 
Commodore Tatnall to engage and capture the Monitor. She 
was afraid to go too close to shallow water, but dared and chal- 
lenged the Monitor to come out and fight. Not even the capture 
of two brigs and a schooner, the Thomas Jefferson, and the 
hoisting of the Confederate flag on these captured ships, which 
must have been a humiliation to her, would tempt the Monitor 
to move. Had she taken the dare, she would undoubtedly have 
been captured, and she knew it. She had received orders from 
Washington not to risk another encounter. Twice she refused 
the challenge from the Merrimac. Seeing there was no chance 
for a fight, the Merrimac returned to Sewall's Point and anch- 
ored. 

The truth of this can be testified to by both English and 
French men-of-war anchored at Hampton Roads. They wit- 
nessed the whole affair. The Vanderbilt, a fast merchant ves- 
sel near the Monitor, also remained inactive. 

Captain Eggleston's testimony was that, "The Monitor was 
worsted and fled for safety to shallow water, and sought pro- 
tection under the guns of Fortress Monroe." 

102 



J. William Jones, the historian, says: "The Confederates 
were obliged to destroy the ironclad Merrimac, which had won 
so signal a victory at Hampton Roads." 

The Federal Government offered large rewards to any one 
who would destroy the Merrimac. The U. S. Navy blocked the 
Potomac to keep her from going to Washington. When May 
1st an order came for the Confederates to evacuate Norfolk, 
Commodore Tatnall tried to make her sea-worthy in stormy 
weather and take her to the Georgia coast, but finding he could 
not, he decided to blow her up rather than allow her to fall in- 
to the enemy's hands. Whether this was wisest or not is a 
question, but the Confederate government exonerated Commo- 
dore Tatnall from all blame. 

It becomes our duty to see that the truth of this is put into 
the books our young people are studying, and the Cyclorama 
and moving picture shows falsely representing this event 
should be forced to correct the falsehoods portrayed, or not 
allowed to present it. 

That contest marked a new era in maritime warfare. The 
great naval battles of the world heretofore had been fought 
with wooden vessels, but the ironclad principle embodied in 
the Merrimac is now used in all the navies of the world. 

Think of all accomplished by the Merrimac and her 
wooden helpers in two days, March 8th and 9th, 1862. She en- 
countered, defied and defeated 2,890 men and captured 230 
guns. She burned the Congress, sunk the Cumberland, riddled 
the Minnesota, drove off the Roanoke, peppered the St. Law- 
rence, disabled three gunboats, silenced the Fortress Monroe, 
challenged the Monitor and kept her under the guns of Fortress 
Monroe. Had she been able to go up the James River McClel- 
lan could not have changed his base at Harrison's Landing, and 
his army would have been at the mercy of the Confederate 
forces. 

The Monitor did not long survive the Merrimac. She went 
to sea after her rival was blown up and foundered off the coast 
of Cape Hatteras. 

History of the Navy. The history of the Navy and the 
part Southern men had in it should be classed as historical sins 
of omission to be righted. Did not John Paul Jones of Fred- 
ericksburg, Va., on July 4th, 1777 hoist on his ship "The 
Ranger," the first American flag to float over an American war 
vessel? 

1D3 



Did not Stephen Decatur of Maryland return with the first 
prize captured from the French in 1798, and did not this act 
inspire confidence in creating a Federal Navy? Was not Ben- 
jamin Stoddard of Maryland the first Secretary of that Navy? 

Where in all naval history do you find a greater hero than 
William Lewis Herndon of Fredericksburg, Va. ? The story of 
the Titanic set the minds of the world wild with consternation. 
Why has so little been said of the sinking of the "Central 
America" in 1857? On the way to Havana with 501 passengers 
on board, crew included, a storm was encountered, and 426 
went to a watery grave, Captain Herndon among them. The 
Titanic was three hours sinking, the Central America three 
days and three nights. There was no wireless telegraphy then. 
The only hope was a passing vessel. Captain Herndon's cheer- 
ful spirit never left him. He kept everyone on board buoyed 
up with the hope of a passing boat. This kept the women and 
children brave. The women begged to relieve the tired and ex- 
hausted men. There was not the slightest disorder when on 
the third day a brig was signalled, the life boats were lowered 
and into them the women and children were put to buffet, it 
seemed in vain, against the tempestuous waves. They did reach 
the shore in safety. 

Captain Herndon, after the life boats had been lowered, 
sent by the last one to leave the boat his watch to his wife as the 
only legacy in earthly possessions, donned his full uniform and 
calmly awaited death. Some few were saved from the wreck, 
and testified that perfect order reigned on board to the last. 
Truly that was 

"The knightliest of the knightly race. 

That since the days of old, 
Have kept the lamp of chivalry 
Alight in hearts of gold." 

The Congressional Records will give you Senator Benja- 
min's report, Congress' action and Seward's resolution. His 
fellow officers erected a monument at Annapolis to his mem- 
ory. 

One of Captain Herndon's children became the wife of a 
President of the United States, Chester A. Arthur, and Herndon 
himself was brother-in-law to our Matthew Fontaine Maury. 

In 1862 the "Ariel," owned by Commodore Vanderbilt was 
seized by the Alabama off the coast of Cuba. She had on board 
140 Federal officers and men, a battalion of marines, besides 

104 



300 other passengers, among them many women and children. 
Raphael Semmes was the commander of the Alabama. He 
could not take the "Ariel's" passengers on board the Alabama. 
The idea of sinking the vessel was never thought of. He sent 
word to the women and children that no harm should be done, 
as they were greatly frightened because they were told that 
they had fallen into the hands of a pirate. He promised that 
not an article belonging to any passenger should even be 
touched. The soldiers were paroled, and the "Ariel" released 
under bond from Commodore Vanderbilt, a bond that was 
never paid, however, and then the Alabama steamed away. 
How different was this policy from present day war policy. 

The first successful submarine that was ever constructed 
was in Charleston Harbor, February 17th, 1864. This was the 
"Little David" of Hundley. It was cigar shaped, 30 or 35 feet 
long, and 7% feet deep. She torpedoed the "Housatonic" and 
sunk her. Then the "Little David" sank too, the cause un- 
known. Years after she was found and raised. 

What cruiser can show a record like the Shenandoah? 
She was in the Arctic Ocean when the surrender came. In 
eight months she captured 38 vessels, valued at $1,000,000. Six 
were released on bond and 32 destroyed. She visited every 
ocean except the Antarctic, and was the only vessel that car- 
ried the Confederate flag around the world, and floated that 
flag six months after the surrender. She fired the last gun of 
the Confederacy, June 22nd, 1865. She went 58,000 miles in 
thirteen months without a serious mishap. She first learned of 
the surrender August 2nd, 1865. She decided then to go to 
England, and November 6th, 1865, she steamed up the river 
Mersey with the Confederate flag flying and gave herself up to 
the British Government. 

The Sumter under our Raphael Semmes captured in two 
days seven ships loaded with sugar and molasses, and in 
twenty-eight days captured nine more. 

When Admiral Semmes took charge of the Alabama the 
Sumter was sold to England and remained at Gibraltar. 

No, there is such ignorance of the South's Navy, and what 
was accomplished by it, that it reflects upon the South, as well 
as the North. I wonder how many here present know that the 
Navy Yard was once in Charlotte, N. C. Yes, in an inland city, 
far away from the sea, where no ships could land or be re- 
paired, and yet in that Navy Yard guns were cast, and gun 
carriages and other implements of war constructed for the land 

105 



forces, as well as for the Navy. When Norfolk surrendered 
this move seemed necessary. I wish that we could put Scharff's 
History of the Navy into every library of the South. 

Last year I asked for sketches of Confederate surgeons for 
that volume of history, and some of you never heeded the re- 
quest. Now this year I ask for sketches of men of the Navy for 
another volume, and I hope to be more successful. Do not al- 
low one heroic deed to pass unrecorded. 

Who burned Columbia? Historians still continue unblush- 
ingly to quote Sherman's official report in regard to this mat- 
ter, in spite of Sherman's own acknowledgement that he falsi- 
fied in making this report. He first said: "I disclaim on the 
part of my army any agency in the fire, but on the contrary 
claim that we saved what of Columbia remained unconsumed. 
And now without hesitancy I charge Wade Hampton with hav- 
ing burned his own city of Columbia." Men and women who 
were in Columbia at the time declared this was absolutely 
false, and were laughed at for their denial. The Federal troops 
came into the city early, at 3 a. m. February 17th, 1865, and the 
Confederate troops withdrew. There was no sign of burning 
cotton, anywhere as had been charged. One of General Hamp- 
ton's offi-^ers. Lieutenant Milford Overby, 9th Ky. Cav., saw 
General Hampton's order to his men that no cotton should be 
fired for fear of burning the city. He said he could testify that 
he was the last Confederate soldier in the city and no cotton 
was burning when he left. 

Dr. Joseph LeConte, in his autobiography, said: "While 
General Sherman had promised protection to the city, a 
Colonel quartered in my brother John LeConte's house, hinted 
that rockets would be the signal for the destruction of the city, 
and others so testified. At 7 p. m. the rockets were fired and the 
burning of Columbia began." Sherman's aide-de-camp. Major 
Nichols, in his diary said that the city was not fired until even- 
ing. Now that was fifteen hours after every Confederate had 
left. 

In spite of these testimonies statements continue to be 
made that Sherman's troops did not burn Columbia. In 1875 
General Wade Hampton demanded that the United States Sen- 
ate should investigate the matter, and General Sherman did 
not wish such investigation, but made another official state- 
ment, which should have put forever at rest any other state- 
ment to the contrary. He said: "In my official report of the 
conflagration I distinctly charged it to General Wade Hamp- 

106 



ton, and now confess I did so pointedly to shake the faith of his 
people in him, for he was in my opinion a braggart and pro- 
fessed to be the special champion of South Carolina." This is 
found in General Sherman's book published in 1875. Later he 
added, "Columbia was burned rather by accident than design," 
but how does he account for the sky-rockets ? 

The truth of the matter is that British subjects began to de- 
mand payment for their cotton. If Federal troops burned it, 
the United States government would have to pay for that cot- 
ton. If Confederates burned it South Carolina would be re- 
sponsible. When an investigation was urged the matter was 
dropped upon Sherman's confession. It has never been ascer- 
tained if Britain's cotton was ever paid for, but it can be stated 
South Carolina was never asked to do it. 

Whitelaw Reid, of Ohio, editor of The New York Tribune, 
said, "The burning of Columbia was the most monstrous bar- 
barity of Sherman's barbarous march." 

Reconstruction in the South. I come to a period of his- 
tory about which the South still feels sore, and a period I fain 
would pass without a comment. I refer to the Reconstruction 
Period following the War between the States. But since so 
many are writing to your Historian to ask how far the story of 
that period is truthfully represented in the new play "The 
Birth of the Nation," she feels it is best to give authentic facts. 
Thomas Dixon in his Clansman has been brave enough to 
faithfully give the picture of the conditions then, and for this 
he has been greatly maligned, but the half he has never told. 
Thomas Nelson Page in his "Red Rock" has given but a faint 
picture of those days. 

"The Birth of the Nation," is not altogether a true presen- 
tation of Reconstruction Days, for it does not tell the half of the 
story. The humiliation and mortification endured by the men 
and women of the South at that time can never be told by a 
picture film. Still it is teaching history. I feared to see it, for 
I did not wish to live over again those awful experiences even 
through a moving picture show. I never heard of a Ku Klux 
being killed, especially by a negro. Their superstitious fear 
lest they should forever be haunted by his spirit would have 
made them afraid to do it. In this respect the representation is 
misleading, but the South owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Grif- 
feth for having the South's side presented in this period of our 
history. This presentation is opening the eyes of the North. 

107 



Lest our Northern friends may think we have taken ad- 
vantage of this opportunity to give vent to our feelings from 
the Southern point of view and what we may say will seem to 
be from prejudice, I shall only quote from fair-minded men of 
the North, not of the South, nor will I even tell you the worst 
things these men of the North have said. 

I shall first quote from Walter Henry Cook, a professor in 
the Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, a Northern 
man by birth and education, one who is trying to read history 
with his heart as well as his eyes: "The Northern soldier re- 
turned to his home to find every comfort and convenience. The 
North was more prosperous than when the war began. Manu- 
factures had increased; railroads had opened up the West; im- 
migrants were supplying labor for factory and farm, and while 
the most destructive war in the history of the world had taken 
place yet an increase in wealth, population and power had 
been the result. 

"What a contrast to the South ! The Southern soldier re- 
turned defeated, sorrowful, ill-clad, ill-fed, sick in mind and 
body, to find the South desolate and prostrate. The whole eco- 
nomic system had been destroyed or confiscated. Factories in 
ashes, railroads in ruin, bonds useless, currency valueless, a 
pitiable condition ! 

"A new economic system could have been built up by the 
men and women of the South with freed slaves had they been 
let alone. The policy of Thad Stevens and Charles Sumner 
after Lincoln's death stirred up ex-slaves to hate the white 
men of the South, especially when they preached a gospel of 
social equality for which the men of the South would not stand 
under any circumstances." 

The next quotation is from Dan Voorhees, Representative 
for many years, and later a United States Senator from Indi- 
ana. In his speech "Plunder of Eleven States," made in the 
House of Representatives, March 23rd, 1872, he pictures well 
the animus of Reconstruction. He said, "From turret to foun- 
dation you tore down the government of eleven States. You 
left not one stone upon another. You not only destroyed their 
local laws, but you trampled upon their ruins. You called Con- 
ventions to frame new Constitutions for these old States. You 
not only said who should be elected to rule over these States, 
but you said who should elect them. You fixed the quality and 
the color of the voters. You purged the ballot box of intelli- 
gence and virtue, and in their stead you placed the most ignor- 

108 



ant and unqualified race in the world to rule over these peo- 
ple." Then taking State by State he showed what Thad Stev- 
ens' policy had done. 

"Let the great State of Georgia speak first," he said. "You 
permitted her to stand up and start in her new career, but see- 
ing some flaw in your handiwork, you again destroyed and 
again reconstructed her State government. You clung to her 
throat; you battered her features out of shape and recognition, 
determined that your party should have undisputed possession 
and enjoyment of her offices, her honors, and her substance. 
Then bound hand and foot you handed her over to the rapacity 
of robbers. Her prolific and unbounded resources inflamed 
their desires. 

"In 1861 Georgia was free from debt. Taxes were light as 
air. The burdens of government were easy upon her citizens. 
Her credit stood high, and when the war closed she was still 
free from indebtedness. After six years of Republican rule 
you present her, to the horror of the world, loaded with a debt 
of $50,000,000, and the crime against Georgia is the crime this 
same party has committed against the other Southern States. 
Your work of destruction was more fatal than a scourge of 
pestilence, war or famine. 

"Rufus B. Bullock, Governor of Georgia, dictated the legis- 
lation of Congress, and the great commonwealth of Georgia 
was cursed by his presence. With such a Governor, and such a 
Legislature in perfect harmony, morally and politically, their 
career will go down to posterity without a rival for infamous 
administrations of the world. That Governor served three 
years and then absconded with all of the gains. The Legisla- 
ture of two years spent $100,000 more than had been spent dur- 
ing any eight previous years. They even put the children's 
money, laid aside for education of white and black, into their 
own pockets." 

When Senator Voorhees came to South Carolina, the 
proud land of Marion and Sumter, his indignation seems to 
have reached its pinnacle. 

"There is no form of ruin to which she has not fallen a 
prey, no curse with which she has not been baptized, no cup of 
humiliation and suffering her people have not drained to the 
dregs. There she stands the result of your handiwork bank- 
rupt in money, ruined in credit, her bonds hawked about the 
streets at ten cents on the dollar, her prosperity blighted at 
home and abroad, without peace, happiness, or hope. There 

109 



she stands with her skeleton frame admonishing all the world 
of the loathsome consequences of a government fashioned in 
hate and fanaticism, and founded upon the ignorant and vic- 
ious classes of manhood. Her sins may have been many and 
deep, and the color of scarlet, yet they will become as white as 
snow in comparison with those you have committed against 
her in the hour of her helplessness and distress." 

Then he took in like manner State after State, and wound 
up with this: "I challenge the darkest annals of the human 
race for a parallel to the robberies which have been perpe- 
trated on these eleven American States. Had you sown seeds 
of kindness and good will they would long ere this have blos- 
somed into prosperity and peace. Had you sown seeds of 
honor, you would have reaped a golden harvest of content- 
ment and obedience. Had you extended your charities and 
your justice to a distressed people you would have awakened 
a grateful affection in return. But as you planted in hate and 
nurtured in corruption so have been the fruits which you have 
gathered." 

I return now to quote from Walter Cook in regard to Re- 
construction graft. Governor Warmouth of Louisiana accum- 
ulated one and a half million in four years on a salary of $8,000 
a year. Governor Moses of South Carolina acknowledged that 
he had accepted $65,000 in bribes. Governor Clayton of Ark- 
ansas said he intended to people the State with negroes. The 
carpetbag government of Florida stole meat and flour given 
for helpless women and children. In North Carolina and Ala- 
bama negro convicts were made justices of the peace, men who 
were unable to read or write. In the South Carolina Legisla- 
ture 94 black men were members. The Speaker of the House, 
the Clerk of the House, the doorkeeper, the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee, and the Chaplain, were all black 
men and some of them could neither read nor write." 

The next is an extract from The Chicago Chronicle, writ- 
ten by a Northern man : 

"The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution grew out 
of a spirit of revenge, for the purpose of punishing the South- 
ern people. It became a part of the Constitution by fraud and 
force to secure the results of war. The war was not fought to 
secure negro suffrage. 

"The history of the world may be searched in vain for a 
parallel to the spirit of savagery which it inflicted upon a de- 
feated and impoverished people, the unspeakably barbarous 

110 



rule of a servile race just liberated from bondage, Negro suff- 
rage was a crime against the white people of the South. It was 
a crime against the blacks of the South. It was a crime against 
the whole citizenship of the Republic. Political power was 
never conferred upon a race so poorly equipped to receive it." 

Now a last quotation from Charles Francis Adams, the 
grandson of John Quincy Adams: "I have ever been one of 
those who have thought extremely severe measures were dealt 
the Southern people after the Civil War, measures of unprece- 
dented severity. The Southern community was not only des- 
olated during the war but $3,000,000,000 of property confiscated 
after the war. I am not aware that history records a similar 
act superadded to the destruction and desolation of war." 

Again : "Their manumitted slaves belonging to an inferior 
and alien race, were enfranchised and put in control of the 
whole administration. Is there a similar case recorded in his- 
tory? If so I have never heard of it. It was simply a case of 
insane procedure, and naturally resulted in disaster. We stab- 
bed the South to the quick, and during all the years of recon- 
struction turned the dagger round and round in the festering 
wound. If the South had been permitted to secede slavery 
would have died a natural death." 

The United States government is the only government that 
ever freed her slaves without giving just compensation for 
them. 

Dr. Wyeth in his "With Sabre and Scalpel," published by 
Harper & Brothers, New York, says, "None but those who went 
through this period have any conception of it. Defeat on bat- 
tlefield brought no dishonor, but all manner of oppressions, 
with poverty and enforced domination of a race lately in slav- 
ery brought humiliation and required a courage little less than 
superhuman." 

The North said the Freedman's Bureau was necessary to 
protect the negro. The South said the Ku Klux Klan was nec- 
essary to protect the white woman. 

The trouble arose from interference on the part of the 
scalawags and carpetbaggers in our midst, and they were the 
ones to be dealt with first to keep the negroes in their rightful 
place. 

Mrs. Rose's "Ku Klux Klan" is authority on this subject. 
Put that book into your schools. 

Textbooks. Why should we be so intent upon the truth of 
history being put into the textbooks taught in our schools? Be- 
lli 



cause history as now written is stirring up discord and causing 
bitterness. It is stated upon good authority that in private 
schools in the South 81 per cent, use histories which misrepre- 
sent the South, 17 per cent, of these omit most important his- 
tory pertaining to the South. The South resents these false- 
hoods, and that part of the North ignorant of our side resents 
our resentment. Peace can be brought into the hearts of both 
only when a clear, plain, fair, truthful and unprejudiced his- 
tory shall be given, and that is what we as U. D. G. are trying 
to give. 

It is the custom of your historian to publish in local papers 
bits of history as gathered, especially disputed points in his- 
tory, inviting criticisms and correction, so that the mistakes 
can be corrected during the lifetime of those who have made 
the history. Every historian is liable to mistakes. I have made 
many myself, but gladly have I welcomed the corrections when 
proofs accompanied the correction. 

One may ask, "Have any histories true to the South been 
written by Northern historians?" How glad I am to say "Yes," 
and I wish I had the means to place copies of these in our 
Southern as well as Northern schools. George Lunt, of Boston, 
Mass., in "The Origin of the Late War," written in 1865, and 
published by D. Appleton & Go., of New York, has given as fair 
and just a presentation of the causes leading to our War be- 
tween the States as any Southern person could desire. He was 
opposed to slavery, but he did not hesitate to show that by the 
Gonstitution the North had no right to interfere, and that it 
Was a question that the slaveholders themselves only could set- 
tle. He showed how the South's rights had been interfered 
with in the Tariff Acts and by other unjust discriminations, and 
was honest enough to fairly present both sides of the causes 
that forced the South to secede. General John W. Tench, of 
Florida, allowed me to see a copy of this book. I fear it is out 
of print. Dan Voorhees, of Indiana, in his speeches has righted 
the South in Reconstruction history. Gharles Francis Adams 
has tried to do us justice in regard to our Gonstitutional rights. 
Hamilton Mabie has done much to right the injustice to the 
South in literature. 

It was a Northern historian who said: "Eliminate the 
achievements of Virginia's great men, and you nearly unmake 
American history. Theirs were the brains that conceived, 
theirs the hands that constructed our National system, and 
formed the foundation upon which have been builded Ameri- 

112 



can greatness and glory." Why is it these men have done the 
South justice? Because they have taken the trouble to investi- 
gate the truth concerning us. 

Patriotic men and women of the North as well as of the 
South are demanding true history, and our sectional differ- 
ences will disappear when w^e succeed in getting down to the 
truth of history. 

The trouble with most of the textbooks on history is that 
they treat mainly of current events preceding and during the 
War between the States, hence they are records of excited pas- 
sions, embittered prejudices, and extravagant utterances of the 
masses of people on both sides, and few go into a philosoph- 
ical review of the causes leading to the war, and how that war 
might have been prevented. The historians of today desirous 
of steering clear of those questions which embitter, omit so 
much that should be there, and the injustice to the South is 
more now in these omissions than what is really said against 
us. 

Horace Greely, considered the fairest writer to the South 
of his day, in his "American Conflict," stresses the war as "a 
culmination of a strife for more than a century over negro 
slavery," That is not true. Slavery may have been, and un- 
doubtedly was, an occasion of war, but it was not the real 
cause. The real cause was a different and directly opposite 
view as to the nature of the government of the United States. 
The Southern States withdrew for better protection, which the 
government was not giving as guaranteed by the Constitution. 
Then the Federal government denied their right to withdraw, 
and the war was to coerce them back into the Union. The 
South resisted them in defense of rights given them not only by 
the United States Constitution but by the Declaration of 1776. 
There really were more slave-holders in the Northern army 
than in the Confederate army. 

Dr. Curry, in his Southern States of the American Union, 
says, "History, poetry, romance, art, and public opinion have 
been most unjust to the South. If the true record be given, the 
South is rich in patriotism, in intellectual force, in civic and 
military achievements, in heroism, in honorable and sagacious 
statesmanship, but if history as now written is accepted it will 
consign the South to infamy." Shall we accept it? I say we 
must not. 

One college in the South had students who were too patri- 
otic to study history unjust to the South. They were the chil- 

113 



dren of Confederate heroes. The textbook in use said, "Jeffer- 
son Davis was a man of small calibre and should have been 
hanged as a traitor." They sent a committee to the teacher to 
request that the textbook be changed. She refused on the 
ground of expense. They preferred the request to the Presi- 
dent of the college, and he refused. They then applied to the 
Trustees and they refused. In a quiet, dignified manner, with 
no spirit of insubordination, they kindled a bonfire on the 
campus and into it every copy of that history was thrown. The 
authorities were taught a lesson— not one member of that class 
was expelled. 

A grandmother teaching a grandson his geography lesson 
discovered in that lesson that her own brother was called a 
traitor because of his prominence in secession, and the state- 
ment made that he and all other rebels like him should have 
been hanged. She appealed to the Board of Education to 
exclude the book from the school, but the answer came that 
the expense to parents would be too great, but they ordered 
that particular leaf in the textbook to be cut out. Was that 
grandmother satisfied? Not at all. 

A textbook now used largely in Southern schools contains 
this statement: "It is impossible for the student of history to- 
day to feel otherwise than that the cause for which the South 
fought was unworthy." Do you think such teaching as that is 
calculated to make our young people true to the cause for 
which their fathers and grandfathers fought? 

A veteran came to me with tears streaming from his eyes, 
saying: "What can we do? My granddaughter came home 
from school and said, 'Grandpa, our teacher said today that 
the slaveholders beat their slaves until the blood fairly gushed 
out of their backs, and I was ashamed to tell them my grand- 
father ever owned slaves.' " 

While traveling in the West I met a gentleman who said 
to me, "Miss Rutherford, my father was a Confederate soldier. 
He was killed at Shiloh, but had he lived I am sure he would 
have regretted having fought on the wrong side." My answer 
was, "Far more probably he would regret having a son so dis- 
loyal to the principles for which he was willing to give his life." 

Imagine the indignation of a party of Southern tourists 
when they found in a London hotel in a copy of The British 
Weekly, giving James Russell Lowell as authority, the follow- 
ing statement : "The aristocracy of the South has added noth- 
ing to the requirements of civilization except the carrying of 

114 



bowie knives and the chewing of tobacco, the hightoned 
Southern gentleman being not only quadruminous, but quid- 
ruminant." And again quoting from the same authority, also 
found in The British Weekly : "During the late American war, 
the Southern women wore personal ornaments made of the 
bones of their buried foe, and the prisoners were starved that 
their scalps should be used as trophies." 

Matthew Maury's name is omitted from the list of great 
scientists found in the Congressional Library. Why? Because 
he espoused the Confederate cause. 

In a textbook on history is found this statement: "The 
Confederacy was now placed before the civilized world as the 
champion of the detested institution of slavery. The Southern 
people under this institution were daily growing morally, 
mentally and physically weaker." 

Another textbook refers to "the clemency of the North in 
not hanging Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis." The names 
of the authors of these books are not given because of the 
advertisement. A lesson was learned when we attacked a 
certain history by name several years ago. 

Let me assure you that we are not demanding textbooks 
written wholly, nor printed wholly by Southern writers; but 
we do recommend, where Southern men have invested their 
capital in publishing houses for southern textbooks, as the 
B. F. Johnson Co., in Richmond, and can compete in quality 
and price with northern firms, that Boards of Education in 
the South should give preference to the southern publishers. 
We shall not be free in the South so long as we are bound 
hand and foot by the Book Trust, and so long as there are 
men living amongst us willing to be bribed. 

When I attacked the Book Trust in Washington City, in 
1912, a gentleman wrote to me offering his aid in investigating 
this question of bribery. He said: "With your permission I 
wish to lay before you the root of the trouble as I see it. The 
teachers and officials are not so much to blame as certain big 
lawyers and politicians in the South. Some of these are sons 
of Confederate soldiers, I am sorry to say, but they are 
employed by the Book Trust to continue the use of books 
unjust to the South, because those books having been con- 
demned thirty or forty years ago, no royalty is paid upon them, 
and the cost of manufacture is very small. This is kept a 
secret of course, and these lawyers and politicians stultify 
themselves by accepting large fees, in reality they are bribes, 

115 



to keep these books in the schools, and I have proof in hand 
where from $5,000 to $40,000 have been paid for such service. 
Of course, all of this can only be stopped when a responsible 
body like the Daughters of the Confederacy or Confederate 
Veterans take it in hand. When they do, there is a great 
cloud of witnesses that can be produced." Now this is the 
work our Textbook Committee must take in hand next year. 

If you will look into the compilations of American Liter- 
ature in your libraries you will find that the Southern writers 
have never had their due. For instance in Stedman's and 
Hutchinson's Library of American Literature fifty pages are 
given to Walt Whitman, and five lines to our Henry Timrod. 
Richardson in his American Literature gives forty pages to 
Fenimore Cooper, and only four pages to our William Gilmore 
Sims. Pattee in his literature gives as many pages to William 
Dean Howells as he does to Paul Hamilton Hayne, Joel Chan- 
dler Harris, the Uncle Remus unique in literature, and George 
W. Cable, and he does not even mention Father Ryan and 
James Barron Hope. Pancoast gives page after page to E. P. 
Roe, and does not mention James Lane Allen and Robert 
Burns Wilson. John R. Thompson, the intimate friend of 
Thackeray and Tennyson, is rarely found in any American 
poetical compilation. In Masterpieces of American Literature, 
published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., no mention is made of 
Edgar Allen Poe, "the master of style and literary imagery," 
while much space is given to O'Reilly's Puritan. 

Now in your libraries also are textbooks and books of 
fiction equally as unjust to the South and you do not know it. 
We must know our own history and literature. If we of the 
South are not sufficiently interested in the history of the South 
to see that it is taught correctly we will continue to be misrep- 
resented. The newspapers and magazines of the North and 
West are now daily misrepresenting us. Just a few weeks ago 
The Chicago Tribune said : "The South is a region of illiteracy, 
blatant self -righteousness, and until better blood is introduced 
the South will remain a reproach and a danger to the Amer- 
ican republic." 

Many histories now in use stress three things which they 

call "salient facts" — we fought to hold our slaves; we were 

brutal to the Andersonville prisoners; and we were whipped. 

The sooner we know our own history and teach it, the 

sooner will such misrepresentations cease. While we pity the 

ignorance which brought forth these statements we cannot rely 

116 



upon pity to correct them. We of the South must do it, and do 
it quickly. Is not this argument sufficient to show the need of 
of a Chair of Southern History and Literature in our Teachers 
CoUege? 

The fairminded North will be glad to know the truth con- 
cerning us. Then let us give it to them. You may ask, "How 
can this best be done?" I reply, "Only by a systematic study of 
our own history and conditions." 

May I urge that in your libraries, public and private, 
school and university, two sets of books be placed? Only in 
this way can your children know what the South may claim. 
These books are in several volumes, and you cannot expect to 
get something for nothing, but they will not cost you as much 
as those histories and encyclopcedias there in your libraries 
today that are teaching untruths concerning the South. These 
two sets of books I wish you to place in your homes are "The 
South in the Building of a Nation," sold by J. S. Clark, 
Birmingham, Ala., and "The Library of Southern Literature," 
sold by Martin, Hoyt & Company, of Atlanta. One supplements 
the other. 

The writing of essays on subjects pertaining to Southern 
history has been of untold advantage. I can speak for my own 
State, where nearly 7,000 school children have been reached 
this year by the subject, "The Causes that Led to the War 
Between the States." 

Things that Make for Peace. Among my volumes of U. 
D. C. history is one called "The Things that Make for Peace." 
In this volume is placed everything beautiful and magnan- 
imous that I find said or done by one side for the other side. 

For instance, Col. James Sample, of the Grand Army of 
the Republic, has sent me copies of articles that he has writ- 
ten, one refuting the charge that President Davis was arrested 
in woman's clothes, the other refuting the charge that Senator 
Hepburn made in the United States Senate in regard to General 
Lee's acceptance of pay from the United States government 
after he had cast his lot with the Confederate cause. 

I have in this volume all of the data regarding the monu- 
ment that our Mr. Cunningham was instrumental in having 
erected to Mr. Owen, the officer who was kind to him and other 
prisoners when in a Northern prison. 

I have the testimony of the Vermont teacher, who said her 
pastor had urged her to accept a position in the South that she 
might be a missionary to the benighted blacks of the South, but 

117 



she was returning now to be a missionary to the benighted 
whites of Vermont. 

I have in it also the tributes to Captain Wirz from soldiers 
that were in Andersonville Prison, testifying to his uniform 
courteous treatment of them. I have a copy of the letter 
accompanying the watch they presented to him for his kind- 
ness. 

I have also an account of one of President Davis' old 
political enemies, one prominent in the John Brown affair, 
being received as a guest at Beauvoir, and a copy of a letter 
from him testifying to the injustice that had been done to 
President Davis. 

I have the tribute to the Southern gentleman by one of the 
Federal generals who was placed in Georgia when the South 
was under military rule. He said he had asked to be placed 
in the South in order to humiliate those slave-drivers of the 
South, but he wished now to testify that he had found those 
slaveholders types of the finest Christian manhood. 

I have Henry Grady's New England speech, and Henry 
Watterson's tribute to Abraham Lincoln, General John B. 
Gordon's tribute to Northern valor, and many others of like 
spirit. 

I have Lee's reply when the mother requested him to teach 
her boy to hate the Yankees. "Madam, take your boy home. 
We do not teach our boys to hate." 

I have letters from many G. A. R. men commending the 
spirit of "Wrongs of History Righted," and offering to aid me 
in righting other wrongs. 

I have requests from negro teachers at the head of schools 
asking for copies of "Wrongs of History Righted" to give to 
their teachers. I never open that book that I do not feel that 
the spirit of Sumner Cunningham is brooding about me. Are 
you taking his Veteran? 

I have great faith to believe that all will be well in the 
end, and my faith is greatly strengthened as I see a growing 
desire on the part of our own people to study history and find 
out the truth of history. Bitterness and sectionalism will pass 
away when the whole truth is known. 

Let us have patience and have faith in our Nation. Let us 
believe that liberty is a God-given gift and cannot fail. Let 
us have faith in the loyal natural heart of America, and believe 
that sooner or later all wrongs will be righted, all evil will be 
uprooted. 

116 



Clouds will cross the heavens, but let us not forget that the 
sun still shines. 

Society is out of joint. Things do need adjustment, 
threatening evils, social and political are near, but let us be 
patient, for if honest hearts are aroused against these evils 
they must give way before an indignant people, and order 
and peace will be restored under the guiding hand of a great 
and loving Jehovah. 



119 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 441 015 4 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 441 015 4 • 



